Strategic reprogramming of implantable cardiac monitors reduces the false-positive remote alert burden in a nurse-led service.

AIMS: Implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) can generate false-positive (FP) alerts. Although these devices have an extended programmability, there are no recommendations on their optimization to reduce not-relevant activations.We tested a strategic programming optimization guide based on the type of FP and investigated the safety and feasibility of the nurse-led insertion of ICMs with a long-sensing vector. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients implanted by trained nurses with long-sensing vector ICM were enrolled in a 1-month observational stage (Phase A). Patients who had ≥10 FP episodes underwent ICM reprogramming based on the predefined guide and were followed for an additional month (Phase B). A total of 78 patients had successful ICM insertion by nurses with a mean R wave amplitude of 0.96 ± 0.43 mV and an 86% P wave visibility. Only one patient reported a significant device-related issue, and nurse-delivered ICM was generally well accepted by the patients. During Phase A, 11 patients (14%) generated most of FP (3,627/3,849; 94%) and underwent ICM reprogramming. In the following month (Phase B), five patients (45%) were free from FP and six (55%) transmitted 57 FP alerts (98% reduction compared with Phase A). The median number of FP per patient was significantly reduced after reprogramming [195 (interquartile range, 50-311) vs. one (0-10), P = 0.0002]. CONCLUSION: A strategic reprogramming of ICM in those patients with a high FP alert burden reduces the volume of erroneous activations with potential benefits for the remote monitoring service. No concerns were raised regarding nurse-led insertion of ICMs with a long-sensing vector.

Scheduled versus alert transmissions for remote follow-up of cardiac implantable electronic devices: Clinical relevance and resource consumption.

BACKGROUND: The remote follow-up of pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) usually includes scheduled checks and alert transmissions. However, this results in a high volume of remote data reviews to be managed. We measured the relative contribution of scheduled and alert transmissions to the detection of relevant conditions, and the workload generated by their management. METHODS: At our center, the frequency of remote scheduled transmissions is 4/year. Moreover, all system-integrity and clinical alerts are turned on for wireless notification. We calculated the number of transmissions received from January to December 2020, and identified transmissions that necessitated in-hospital access for further assessment and transmissions that required clinical discussion with the physician. For all alert transmissions, we identified whether the alert was clinically meaningful (i.e. center was not previously aware of the condition and no action had yet been taken to treat it). RESULTS: Of 8545 transmissions received from 1697 pacemakers and ICDs, 5766 (67%) were scheduled and 2779 (33%) were alert transmissions received from 764 patients (45%); 499 (9%) scheduled transmissions required clinical discussion with the physician, but only 2 of these necessitated in-hospital visits for further assessment. Of the alert transmissions, 664 (24%) required clinical discussion, and 75 (3%) necessitated in-hospital visits. The proportion of alerts judged clinically meaningful was 7%. CONCLUSION: Scheduled transmissions generate 67% of remote data reviews for pacemakers and ICDs, but their ability to detect clinically relevant events is very low. A strategy that relies exclusively on alert transmissions could ensure continuity of patient monitoring while reducing the workload at the center.

Implementation of remote follow-up of cardiac implantable electronic devices in clinical practice: organizational implications and resource consumption.

AIMS: Current guidelines recommend remote follow-up for all patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. However, the introduction of a remote follow-up service requires specifically dedicated organization. We evaluated the impact of adopting remote follow-up on the organization of a clinic and we measured healthcare resource utilization. METHODS: In 2016, we started the implementation of the remote follow-up service. Each patient was assigned to an experienced nurse and a doctor in charge with preestablished tasks and responsibilities. During 2016 and 2017, all patients on active follow-up at our center were included in the service; since 2018, the service has been fully operational for all patients following postimplantation hospital discharge. RESULTS: As of December 2018, 2024 patients were on active follow-up at the center. Of these, 93% of patients were remotely monitored according to the established protocol. The transmission rates were: 5.3/patient-year for pacemakers, 6.0/patient-year for defibrillators, and 14.1/patient-year for loop recorders. Only 21% of transmissions were submitted to the physician for further clinical evaluation, and 3% of transmissions necessitated an unplanned in-hospital visit for further assessment. Clinical events of any type were detected in 39% of transmissions. Overall, the nurses' total workload was 3596 h per year, that is, 1.95 full-time equivalent, which resulted in 1038 patients/nurse. The total workload for physicians was 526 h per year, that is, 0.29 full-time equivalent. After 1 year on follow-up, most patients judged the service positively and expressed their preference for the new follow-up approach. CONCLUSION: A remote follow-up service can be implemented and efficiently managed by nursing staff with minimal physician support. Patients are followed up with greater continuity and seem to appreciate the service.

Clinical impact, safety, and accuracy of the remotely monitored implantable loop recorder Medtronic Reveal LINQTM.

Aims: Implantable loop recorders (ILR) are indicated in a variety of clinical situations when extended cardiac rhythm monitoring is needed. We aimed to assess the clinical impact, safety, and accuracy of the new Medtronic Reveal LINQTM ILR that can be inserted outside the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory and remotely monitored. Methods and results: All 154 consecutive patients (100 males, 63 ± 15 year-old) who received the Reveal LINQTM ILR during the period July 2014-June 2016 were enrolled. The device was implanted in a procedure room and all patients where provided with the MyCareLinkTM remote monitoring system. Data were reviewed every working day via the Carelink® web system by a specialist nurse who, in case of significant events, consulted an electrophysiologist. During a mean follow-up of 12.1 (6.7-18.4) months (range 2-24 months), a diagnosis was made in 99 (64%) patients and in 60 (39%) ≥1 therapeutic interventions were established following recording of arrhythmias. In 26 of these 60 patients, remote monitoring prompted therapeutic interventions following asymptomatic arrhythmic events 3.8 months before the next theoretical scheduled in-office data download. False bradycardia detection for undersensing occurred in 44 (29%) patients and false tachycardia detection for oversensing in 4 (3%). One patient experienced skin erosion requiring explantation and none suffered from infection. Conclusion: The remote monitoring feature of the Reveal LINQTM allowed earlier diagnosis of asymptomatic but serious arrhythmias in a significant proportion of patients. Implantation of the device outside the EP laboratory appeared safe. However, R-wave undersensing and consequent false recognition of bradyarrhythmias remains a clinically important technical issue.