MANAGEMENT OF REMOTE MONITORING FOR IMPLANTABLE DEVICES CONTROLS: SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE

Abstract

Abstract Background Nowadays the benefits of remote monitoring (RM)of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are Known: an improved both device surveillance and patient clinical management and a decrease in office follow up. So RM is used as supplement in clinic follow up for patients with CIED.However despite decades to RM utilization there are challenges in managing patients with RM including large number of trasmissions and lack of trained staff. There are many different model of care to RM management. Methods We describe our model of care to management CIED recipients with RM considering data collected from January 2021 to November 2023. Results Our model of care consists of 4 electrophysiologists Physicians and 4 Tecnicians. RM enrollment is performed at scheduled in office visit after ten days from hospital discharge after device implantation. implantable cardiac device(ICD)recipients with RM are annualy followed in office and biennal for pacemaker (PM) recipients and they send every three months transmissions. Trained tecnicians gives home monitor, take care of patients education and collected and screen transmissions. Tecnicians inform immediately physicians in case of urgent alert (shock or antitachicardia pacing therapy (ATP), sustained ventricular tachycardia(TV), ventricular fibrillation (Fv) indicator of elective replacement (ERI), lead releted alert or noise). Physician contact patients the same day (exept Saturday and Sunday). In addiction Physicians twice a week review less urgent and scheduled transmissions and call the patients by phone for visit in office for patients with low rate of biventricular pacing, detection of atrial fibrillation. We have 1000 patients with RM: 746 ICD recipients (103 Biotronik, 150 Abbott, 200 Boston scientific, 293 medtronic), 50 implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) recipients and 204 PM recipients. We analyze 12721 transmissions.Considering ICD recipient we detect 96 episode of ATP and 31 of shock. Shock of ICD was registered in 52 patients (6,9%)We received 1982 atrial fibrillation (AF) detection, with 35 for new detectable AF.The most of transmisisone were for low bIV pacing. We contacted these patients by phone about clinical status and in some case we called them in office. Conclusions Our model of care allows to control a large number of trasmissions with fast management of urgent alert trasmissions.