HRS/EHRA Expert Consensus on the Monitoring of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations: developed in partnership with the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA); and in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the Heart Failure Association of ESC (HFA), and th
"Follow-ups were left to the physician's discretion, although they had to comply with the Expert Consensus on the Monitoring of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (i.e. face-toface visits within 72 hours and between two and 12 weeks after device implantation, and every 3—6 months thereafter, either face-to-face or remotely) . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background. - Much attention is being paid to the education of and provision of medical information to patients, to optimize their understanding and acceptance of their disease. Aims. - To ascertain the impact of educating recent recipients of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) on their perception and acceptance of a home monitoring (HM) system. Methods. - Questionnaire 1, completed one month after ICD implantation, was designed to assess: the quality of patient preparation for HM; patient comprehension of HM; and patient anxiety experienced during its installation. The comprehension questions were assigned a score of 2 for an incorrect answer, +1 for a correct answer and 0 for neither (total score ranging from 40 to +20). Questionnaire 2, completed six months after ICD implantation, assessed patient acceptance of and anxiety about HM. Results. - The registry included 571 patients (mean age 63.9 +/- 12.8 years; 83% men; 76% of ICDs implanted for primary prevention) followed by HM for 6.2 +/- 1.2 months. Questionnaire 1 was completed by 430 (75.3%) patients and questionnaire 2 by 398 (69.7%) patients. Younger patients had a better comprehension of HM than older patients. High-quality training conditions improved the comprehension score, and a positive association was observed between anxiety and acceptance levels and the comprehension score. The 80 +/- 20% mean data transmission rate (days of transmission/days of follow-up ratio) was unrelated to the comprehension scores. Conclusion. - A clear understanding was associated with a higher acceptance of HM, although it was unrelated to the data transmission rate.
"The implantation of cardiac electronic devices has increased substantially over the last
decade in response to widening indications (an estimated half a million units were implanted
in Europe in 2009 alone).1 Subsequent
monitoring is an integral part of both device and patient care. This ongoing responsibility,
stated by professional societies, has, until recently, been unguided by any prospectively
derived data.2 Traditional practice
has followed an in-clinic follow-up protocol by physicians and/or device specialists to
retrieve stored diagnostic data. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Cardiac implantable electronic devices are increasing in prevalence. The post-implant
follow-up is important for monitoring both device function and patient condition. However,
practice is inconsistent. For example, ICD follow-up schedules vary from 3 monthly to
yearly according to facility and physician preference and availability of resources.
Recommended follow-up schedules impose significant burden. Importantly, no surveillance
occurs between follow-up visits. In contrast, implantable devices with automatic remote
monitoring capability provide a means for performing constant surveillance, with the
ability to identify salient problems rapidly. Remote home monitoring reduces the volume of
device clinic visits and provides early detection of patient and/or system problems.
European Heart Journal 12/2012; 34(25). DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs388 · 15.20 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.