ABSTRACT
Introduction: The impact of remote monitoring (RM) on clinical outcomes in heart failure (HF) patients with cardiac resynchronisation therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation is controversial. This study sought to evaluate the performance of an RM follow-up protocol using modified criteria of the PARTNERS HF trial in comparison with a conventional follow-up scheme. Material and methods: We compared cardiovascular (CV) mortality (primary endpoint) and hospitalisation events for decompensated HF, and the number of ambulatory in-office visits (secondary endpoint) in CRT-D implanted patients with automatic RM utilising daily transmissions (RM group, n = 45) and conventional follow-up (CFU group, n = 43) in a single-centre observational study. Results: After a median follow-up of 25 months, a significant advantage was seen in the RM group in terms of CV mortality (1 vs. 6 death event, p = 0.04), although RM follow-up was not an independent predictor for CV mortality (HR = 0.882; 95% CI: 0.25-3.09; p = 0.845). Patient CV mortality was independently influenced by hospitalisation events for decompensated HF (HR = 3.24; 95% CI: 8-84; p = 0.022) during follow-up. We observed significantly fewer hospitalisation events for decompensated HF (8 vs. 29 events, p = 0.046) in the RM group. Furthermore, a decreased number of total (161 vs. 263, p < 0.01) and unnecessary ambulatory in-office visits (6 vs. 19, p = 0.012) were seen in the RM group as compared to the CFU group. Conclusions: Follow-up of CRT-D patients using automatic RM with daily transmissions based on modified PARTNERS HF criteria enabled more effective ambulatory interventions leading indirectly to improved CV survival. Moreover, RM directly decreased the number of HF hospitalizations and ambulatory follow-up burden compared to CRT-D patients with conventional follow-up.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had spread into a pandemic affecting healthcare providers worldwide. Heart failure patients with implanted cardiac devices require close follow-up in-spite of pandemic related healthcare restrictions. METHODS: Patients were retrospectively registered and clinical outcomes were compared of 61 remote monitored (RMG) versus 71 conventionally (in-office only) followed (CFG) cardiac device implanted, heart failure patients. Follow-up length was 12 months, during the COVID-19 pandemic related intermittent insitutional restrictions. We used a specified heart failure detection algorithm in RMG. This investigation compared worsening heart failure-, arrhythmia- and device related adverse events as primary outcome and heart failure hospitalization rates as secondary outcome in the two patient groups. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in the primary composite end-point during the first 12 months of COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.672). In RMG, patients who had worsening heart failure event had relative modest deterioration in heart failure functional class (p = 0.026), relative lower elevation of N terminal-pro BNP levels (p < 0.01) at in-office evaluation and were less hospitalized for worsening heart failure in the first 6 months of pandemic (p = 0.012) compared to CFG patients. CONCLUSIONS: Specified remote monitoring alert-based detection algorithm and workflow in device implanted heart failure patients may potentially indicate early worsening in heart failure status. Preemptive adequate intervention may prevent further progression of deteriorating heart failure and thus prevent heart failure hospitalizations.
