Cargando…
The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial
BACKGROUND: Impact of telemedicine with remote patient monitoring (RPM) in implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) patients on clinical outcomes has been investigated in various clinical settings with divergent results. However, role of RPM on patient-reported-outcomes (PRO) is unclear. The INF...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8166667/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32417952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01667-0 |
_version_ | 1783701542791020544 |
---|---|
author | Leppert, Florian Siebermair, Johannes Wesemann, Ulrich Martens, Eimo Sattler, Stefan M. Scholz, Stefan Veith, Stefan Greiner, Wolfgang Rassaf, Tienush Kääb, Stefan Wakili, Reza |
author_facet | Leppert, Florian Siebermair, Johannes Wesemann, Ulrich Martens, Eimo Sattler, Stefan M. Scholz, Stefan Veith, Stefan Greiner, Wolfgang Rassaf, Tienush Kääb, Stefan Wakili, Reza |
author_sort | Leppert, Florian |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Impact of telemedicine with remote patient monitoring (RPM) in implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) patients on clinical outcomes has been investigated in various clinical settings with divergent results. However, role of RPM on patient-reported-outcomes (PRO) is unclear. The INFRARED-ICD trial aimed to investigate the effect of RPM in addition to standard-of-care on PRO in a mixed ICD patient cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized to RPM (n = 92) or standard in-office-FU (n = 88) serving as control group (CTL). At baseline and on a monthly basis over 1 year, study participants completed the EQ-5D questionnaire for the primary outcome Quality of Life (QoL), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey questionnaire for secondary outcomes. Demographic characteristics (82% men, mean age 62.3 years) and PRO at baseline were not different between RPM and CTL. Primary outcome analysis showed that additional RPM was not superior to CTL with respect to QoL over 12 months [+ 1.2 vs. + 3.9 points in CTL and RPM group, respectively (p = 0.24)]. Pre-specified analyses could not identify subgroups with improved QoL by the use of RPM. Neither levels of anxiety (− 0.4 vs. − 0.3, p = 0.88), depression (+ 0.3 vs. ± 0.0, p = 0.38), nor device acceptance (+ 1.1 vs. + 1.6, p = 0.20) were influenced by additional use of RPM. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study show that PRO were not improved by RPM in addition to standard-of-care FU. Careful evaluation and planning of future trials in selected ICD patients are warranted before implementing RPM in routine practice. GRAPHIC ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00392-020-01667-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8166667 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81666672021-06-03 The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial Leppert, Florian Siebermair, Johannes Wesemann, Ulrich Martens, Eimo Sattler, Stefan M. Scholz, Stefan Veith, Stefan Greiner, Wolfgang Rassaf, Tienush Kääb, Stefan Wakili, Reza Clin Res Cardiol Original Paper BACKGROUND: Impact of telemedicine with remote patient monitoring (RPM) in implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) patients on clinical outcomes has been investigated in various clinical settings with divergent results. However, role of RPM on patient-reported-outcomes (PRO) is unclear. The INFRARED-ICD trial aimed to investigate the effect of RPM in addition to standard-of-care on PRO in a mixed ICD patient cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized to RPM (n = 92) or standard in-office-FU (n = 88) serving as control group (CTL). At baseline and on a monthly basis over 1 year, study participants completed the EQ-5D questionnaire for the primary outcome Quality of Life (QoL), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey questionnaire for secondary outcomes. Demographic characteristics (82% men, mean age 62.3 years) and PRO at baseline were not different between RPM and CTL. Primary outcome analysis showed that additional RPM was not superior to CTL with respect to QoL over 12 months [+ 1.2 vs. + 3.9 points in CTL and RPM group, respectively (p = 0.24)]. Pre-specified analyses could not identify subgroups with improved QoL by the use of RPM. Neither levels of anxiety (− 0.4 vs. − 0.3, p = 0.88), depression (+ 0.3 vs. ± 0.0, p = 0.38), nor device acceptance (+ 1.1 vs. + 1.6, p = 0.20) were influenced by additional use of RPM. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study show that PRO were not improved by RPM in addition to standard-of-care FU. Careful evaluation and planning of future trials in selected ICD patients are warranted before implementing RPM in routine practice. GRAPHIC ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00392-020-01667-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-05-16 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8166667/ /pubmed/32417952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01667-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Leppert, Florian Siebermair, Johannes Wesemann, Ulrich Martens, Eimo Sattler, Stefan M. Scholz, Stefan Veith, Stefan Greiner, Wolfgang Rassaf, Tienush Kääb, Stefan Wakili, Reza The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial |
title | The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial |
title_full | The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial |
title_fullStr | The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial |
title_full_unstemmed | The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial |
title_short | The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial |
title_sort | influence of remote monitoring on anxiety/depression, quality of life, and device acceptance in icd patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8166667/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32417952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01667-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leppertflorian theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT siebermairjohannes theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT wesemannulrich theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT martenseimo theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT sattlerstefanm theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT scholzstefan theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT veithstefan theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT greinerwolfgang theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT rassaftienush theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT kaabstefan theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT wakilireza theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT leppertflorian influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT siebermairjohannes influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT wesemannulrich influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT martenseimo influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT sattlerstefanm influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT scholzstefan influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT veithstefan influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT greinerwolfgang influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT rassaftienush influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT kaabstefan influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial AT wakilireza influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial |