Economic analysis of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: Results of the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been demonstrated to improve outpatient clinic workflow and patient management. However, few data are available on the socioeconomic impact of RM. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the costs and benefits of RM compared with standard care (SC). METHODS: We used 12-month patient data from the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study (N = 209; RM: n = 102 (48.81%); SC: n = 107 (51.19%)). Cost comparison was made from 2 perspectives: the health care system (HCS) and patients. The use of health care resources was defined on the basis of hospital clinical folders. Out-of-pocket expenses were reported directly by patients. RESULTS: HCS perspective: The overall mean annual cost per patient in the SC group (€1044.89 ± €1990.47) was significantly higher than in the RM group (€482.87 ± €2488.10) (P < .0001), with a reduction of 53.87% being achieved in the RM group. The primary driver of cost reduction was the cost of cardiovascular hospitalizations (SC: €`886.67 ± €1979.13 vs RM: €432.34 ± €2488.10; P = .0030). Patient and caregiver perspective: The annual cost incurred by patients was significantly higher in the SC group than in the RM group (SC: €169.49 ± €189.50 vs RM: €56.87 ± €80.22; P < .0001). Patients' quality-adjusted life-years were not significantly different between the groups. Provider perspective: The total number of inhospital device follow-up visits was reduced by 58.78% in the RM group. CONCLUSION: RM of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is cost saving from the perspectives of the HCS, patients, and caregivers. Introducing appropriate reimbursements will make RM sustainable even for the provider, i.e. the hospitals which provide the service and encourage widespread adoption of RM.

Design of the evolution of management strategies of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (EVOLVO) study to assess the ability of remote monitoring to treat and triage patients more effectively.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (ICD) frequently visit the clinic for routine device monitoring. Moreover, in the case of clinical events, such as ICD shocks or alert notifications for changes in cardiac status or safety issues, they often visit the emergency department or the clinic for an unscheduled visit. These planned and unplanned visits place a great burden on healthcare providers. Internet-based remote device interrogation systems, which give physicians remote access to patients' data, are being proposed in order to reduce routine and interim visits and to detect and notify alert conditions earlier. METHODS: The EVOLVO study is a prospective, randomized, parallel, unblinded, multicenter clinical trial designed to compare remote ICD management with the current standard of care, in order to assess its ability to treat and triage patients more effectively. Two-hundred patients implanted with wireless-transmission-enabled ICD will be enrolled and randomized to receive either the Medtronic CareLink monitor for remote transmission or the conventional method of in-person evaluations. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the design of the trial. The results, which are to be presented separately, will characterize healthcare utilizations as a result of ICD follow-up by means of remote monitoring instead of conventional in-person evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00873899.

Management of syncope: clinical and economic impact of a Syncope Unit.

AIMS: Aim of this observational study is to evaluate the clinical performance of a Syncope Unit, in order to assess whether the implemented organization really improves syncope management. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study enrolled patients with unexplained syncope who were consecutively referred to our Syncope Unit, either as outpatients or during hospitalization, in a 2-month period. The design of this observational study consists in three phases: a retrospective analysis of their clinical management in the 9 months prior to the first attendance at the Syncope Unit (phase one), their subsequent clinical management in the Syncope Unit (phase two) and a 9-month follow-up (phase three). The retrospective analysis of phase one showed that 25% of patients had already been hospitalized without diagnosis. After Syncope Unit evaluation, diagnosis was obtained in 82% of patients, with 15% of patients indicated to pacing. In the follow-up, 23% of patients experienced a syncopal recurrence. Our analysis indicated an 85% reduction of hospital costs in the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: The clinical and economic analysis of the three phases of our study demonstrates that a Syncope Unit allows an improved management of patients with syncope.