Long-Term Remote vs. Conventional Monitoring of Pacemakers: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Remote monitoring (RM) is the standard of care for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), particularly pacemakers. However, the long-term outcomes of RM versus conventional monitoring (CM) of pacemakers and its effectiveness in reducing in-office (IO) visits for device reprogramming require elucidation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the RM and CM of pacemakers over a long-term follow-up. RECENT FINDINGS: We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RM and CM of pacemakers with at least 12 months of follow-up. Binary endpoints were pooled with risk ratios (RRs), whereas continuous outcomes were computed using mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Among the eight included RCTs, 2159 (48.9%) of 4063 patients underwent RM. Follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 24 months. There were no significant between-group differences in all-cause mortality (RR = 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.57; p = 0.22; I2 = 0%), stroke (RR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.43-1.91; p = 0.79; I2 = 23%), hospitalizations for cardiovascular and/or device-related adverse events (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.21; p = 0.70; I2 = 0%), and quality of life (SMD = - 0.06; 95% CI, - 0.22 to 0.10; p = 0.473; I2 = 0%). RM was associated with fewer IO visits/patient/year (MD = 0.98; 95% CI, - 1.64 to - 0.33; p = 0.08; I2 = 98%) and higher rates of atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) detection (RR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%) than was CM. This meta-analysis suggests that RM of pacemakers leads to higher rates of ATA detection and fewer IO visits/patient/year, without compromising patient safety.