Real-World Disparities in Remote Follow-Up of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single-Center Experience.

Background Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been shown to improve cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. To date, no studies have investigated disparities in use and delivery of RM. This study was performed to investigate if racial and socioeconomic disparities are present in cardiac implantable electronic device RM. Methods and Results This was a retrospective observational cohort study at a single tertiary care center in the United States. Patients who received a newly implanted cardiac implantable electronic device or device upgrade between January 2017 and December 2020 were included. Patients were classified as RM positive (RM+) when they underwent at least ≥2 remote interrogations per year during follow-up. Of all eligible patients, 2520 patients were included, and 34% were women. The mean follow-up was 25 months. Mean age was 71±14 years. Pacemakers constituted 66% of implanted devices, whereas 26% were implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and 8% were cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Most patients (83%) were of European American ancestry. During follow-up, 66% of patients were classified as RM+. Patients who were younger, European American, college-educated, lived in a county with higher median household income, and were active on the hospital's patient portals were more frequently RM+. In an adjusted regression model, RM+ remained associated with the use of the online patient portal (odds ratio [OR], 2.889 [95% CI, 2.387-3.497]), presence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (OR, 1.489 [95% CI, 1.207-1.835]), advanced college degree (OR, 1.244 [95% CI, 1.014-1.527]), and lastly with European American ancestry (P<0.05). During the years of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of RM+ patients increased, whereas the association with ancestry and ethnicity decreased. Conclusions Despite being offered to all patients at implantation, significant disparities were present in cardiovascular implantable electronic device RM in this cohort. Disparities were partly reversed during COVID-19. Further studies are needed to examine health center- and patient-specific factors to overcome these barriers, and to facilitate equal opportunities to participate in RM.

Older adults' perspectives on primary care telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic there were many barriers to telemedicine primary care for adults ≥65 years including insurance coverage restrictions and having lower digital access and literacy. With the pandemic, insurance coverage broadened and many older adults utilized telemedicine creating an opportunity to learn from their experiences to inform future policy. METHODS: Between April 2020 and June 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional multimethod study of English-speaking, cognitively-intact, adults ≥65, who had a phone-only and/or video telemedicine visit with their primary care physician within one large Massachusetts health system (10 different practices) since March 2020. The study questionnaire asked participants their overall satisfaction with telemedicine (7-point scale) and to compare telemedicine with in-person care. We used linear regression to examine the association between participants' demographics, Charlson comorbidity score, and survey completion date with their satisfaction score. The questionnaire also included open-ended questions on perceptions of telemedicine; which were analyzed using qualitative methods. RESULTS: Of 278 eligible patients reached, 208 completed the questionnaire; mean age was 74.4 years (±4.4), 61.5% were female, 91.4% were non-Hispanic White, 64.4% had ≥1 comorbidity, and 47.2% had a phone-only visit. Regardless of their age, participants reported being satisfied with telemedicine; median score was 6.0 on the 7-point scale (25th percentile = 5.0 and 75th percentile = 7.0). Non-Whites satisfaction scores were on average 1 point lower than those of non-Hispanic Whites (p = 0.02). Those with comorbidity reported scores that on average were 0.5 points lower than those without comorbidity (p = 0.07). Overall, 39.5% felt their telemedicine visit was worse than in-person care; 4.9% thought it was better. Participants appreciated telemedicine's convenience but described frustrating technical challenges. While participants preferred in-person care, most wanted telemedicine to remain available. CONCLUSIONS: Adults ≥65 reported being satisfied with primary care telemedicine during the pandemic's first 14 months and wanted telemedicine to remain available.

Perspectives of primary care clinicians in Massachusetts on use of telemedicine with adults aged 65 and older during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To learn how to improve telemedicine for adults >65, we asked primary care clinicians ("PCPs") affiliated with one large Boston-area health system their views on using telemedicine (which included phone-only or video visits) with adults >65 during the COVID-19 pandemic. In open-ended questions, we asked PCPs to describe any challenges or useful experiences with telemedicine and suggestions for improving telemedicine as part of a larger web-based survey conducted between September 2020 and February 2021. Overall, 163/383 (42%) PCPs responded to the survey. Of these, 114 (70%) completed at least one open-ended question, 85% were non-Hispanic white, 59% were female, 75% were community-based, and 75% were in practice >20 years. We identified three major themes in participants' comments including the need to optimize telemedicine; integrate telemedicine within primary care; and that PCPs had disparate attitudes towards telemedicine for older adults. To optimize telemedicine, PCPs recommended more effective digital platforms, increased utilization of home medical equipment (e.g., blood pressure cuffs), and better coordination with caregivers. For integration, PCPs recommended targeting telemedicine for certain types of visits (e.g., chronic disease management), enabling video access, and reducing administrative burdens on PCPs. As for PCP attitudes, some felt telemedicine enhanced the doctor-patient relationship, improved the patient experience, and improved show rates. Others felt that telemedicine visits were incomplete without a physical exam, were less rewarding, and could be frustrating. Overall, PCPs saw a role for telemedicine in older adults' care but felt that more support is needed for these visits than currently offered.