Atrial fibrillation and remote monitoring through cardiac implantable electronic devices in heart failure patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 554-556
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Boriani ◽  
Jacopo F. Imberti ◽  
Marco Vitolo
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Electronic Devices ◽  
Heart Failure Patients ◽  
Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Cardiac implantable electronic device remote monitoring in a large cohort of patients and the need for planning

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 447-456
Author(s):  
Franco Zoppo ◽  
Antonio Lupo ◽  
Giacomo Mugnai ◽  
Francesca Zerbo
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Electronic Device ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Electronic Devices ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Large Cohort ◽  
Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device ◽  
Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Aim: The remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is standard of care. We describe an organizational and projection RM workload model. Methods: At the time of the analysis (2015), 3995 CIED patients were followed-up; 1582 (40.5%) with RM. All RM transmissions (Tx) have been gathered in five event types. Results: We received 10,406 Tx, classified as: 128 (1.2%) red alerts, 141 (1.3%) atrial fibrillation episodes, 1944 (18.6%) yellow alerts, 403 (3.9%) lost Tx (disconnected/noncompliant patients) and 7790 (75.0%) Tx ‘OK' (un-eventful Tx). At the time of 100% of remote CIED managed, we can expect a total of 25,990 Tx/year. Conclusion: We provide a descriptive analysis of remote monitoring management and workload estimation in a large cohort of CIED patients.

scholarly journals Home Management of Heart Failure and Arrhythmias in Patients with Cardiac Devices during Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1618
Author(s):  
Andrea Matteucci ◽  
Michela Bonanni ◽  
Marco Centioni ◽  
Federico Zanin ◽  
Francesco Geuna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ventricular Tachycardia ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Electronic Devices ◽  
Home Monitoring ◽  
Home Management ◽  
Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices ◽  
Cardiac Devices ◽  
The Impact

Background: The in-hospital management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) changed early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Routine in-hospital controls of CIEDs were converted into remote home monitoring (HM). The aim of our study was to investigate the impact of the lockdown period on CIEDs patients and its influence on in-hospital admissions through the analysis of HM data. Methods: We analysed data recorded from 312 patients with HM during the national quarantine related to COVID-19 and then compared data from the same period of 2019. Results: We observed a reduction in the number of HM events in 2020 when compared to 2019. Non-sustained ventricular tachycardia episodes decreased (18.3% vs. 9.9% p = 0.002) as well as atrial fibrillation episodes (29.2% vs. 22.4% p = 0.019). In contrast, heart failure (HF) alarm activation was lower in 2019 than in 2020 (17% vs. 25.3% p = 0.012). Hospital admissions for critical events recorded with CIEDs dropped in 2020, including those for HF. Conclusions: HM, combined with telemedicine use, has ensured the surveillance of CIED patients. In 2020, arrhythmic events and hospital admissions decreased significantly compared to 2019. Moreover, in 2020, patients with HF arrived in hospital in a worse clinical condition compared to previous months.

Cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with advanced systolic heart failure and cardiac implantable electronic devices

2018 ◽  
pp. 1081-1088 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrycja Pruszkowska ◽  
Radosław Lenarczyk ◽  
Jakub Gumprecht ◽  
Ewa Jedrzejczyk-Patej ◽  
Michał Mazurek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Electronic Devices ◽  
Systolic Heart Failure ◽  
Cryoballoon Ablation ◽  
Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

scholarly journals Last before-death transmission in patients with heart failure and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator followed by remote monitoring - insights from the COMMIT-HF registry

EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Dyrbus ◽  
M Tajstra ◽  
L Pyka ◽  
A Kurek ◽  
M Gasior
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Biventricular Pacing ◽  
Electronic Devices ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
Median Period ◽  
Funding Acknowledgements

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background  Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) in patients with heart failure allows to regularly analyze the devices" and patients" conditions.  Purpose  The purpose of this study was evaluation of the ultimate transmissions sent before death in patients monitored remotely.  Methods  The last transmissions delivered by the devices in patients enrolled into COMMIT-HF Registry (NCT02536443) who died when monitored remotely have been retrospectively analysed. The characteristics and contents of the transmissions and clinical reactions undertaken have been obtained from the RM systems of four major RM providers.  Results  Of 1,306 patients with CIEDs who were enrolled at the RM programme in our centre, 267 died and their last transmission occurred less than 90 days before death, of which 133 (49.8%) were scheduled and 134 (50.2%) alert-triggered. The median period between transmission and death was 31 days for scheduled and 8 days for alert-triggered transmissions. The most frequent alert-triggered transmissions were atrial fibrillation/flutter (35.8%) and ventricular tachyarrhythmias (24.6%). A clinical reaction has been undertaken after 9.8% of planned and 67.1% of alert-triggered transmissions and consisted mainly of telephone consultations and referrals for hospital admissions.  Conclusions  This is the first analysis of the ultimate transmissions delivered by CIEDs before death. In approximately 50% of patients, the last transmission has been alert-triggered. Hence, an appropriate organization of the RM facility, which should immediately analyse and react to the transmission, seems mandatory to obtain clinical benefit in patients with HF and RM. Causes of alerts and clinical reactionsCause of alertAll alert-triggered transmissions (N = 134)AF/AFL episode, n (%)48 (35.8%)Ventricular tachycardia, n (%)18 (13.4%)Ventricular fibrillation, n (%)15 (11.2%)Biventricular pacing percentage reduction, n (%)15 (11.2%)Others38 (28.3%)Congestion monitor indications, n (%)14 (10.4%)Clinical reactionPlanned transmission (N = 133)Alert-triggered transmission (N = 134)Telephone consultation10 (7.5%)58 (43.2%)Referral to the GP or outpatient specialist clinic visit2 (1.5%)12 (8.9%)Referral for hospital admission1 (0.7%)18 (13.4%)Pharmacotherapy modificationN/A2 (1.5%)Abstract Figure.

scholarly journals Remote Monitoring of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Patients Undergoing Hybrid Comprehensive Telerehabilitation in Comparison to the Usual Care. Subanalysis from Telerehabilitation in Heart Failure Patients (TELEREH-HF) Randomised Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 3729
Author(s):  
Sławomir Pluta ◽  
Ewa Piotrowicz ◽  
Ryszard Piotrowicz ◽  
Ewa Lewicka ◽  
Wojciech Zaręba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Electronic Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
The Impact

Background: The impact of cardiac rehabilitation on the number of alerts in patients with remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is unknown. We compared alerts in RM and outcomes in patients with CIEDs undergoing hybrid comprehensive telerehabilitation (HCTR) versus usual care (UC). Methods: Patients with heart failure (HF) after a hospitalization due to worsening HF within the last 6 months (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I-III and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%) were enrolled in the TELEREH-HF study and randomised 1:1 to HCTR or UC. Patients with HCTR and CIEDs received RM (HCTR-RM). Patients with UC and CIEDs were offered RM optionally (UC-RM). Data from the initial 9 weeks of the study were analysed. Results: Of 850 enrolled patients, 208 were in the HCTR-RM group and 62 in the UC-RM group. The HCTR-RM group was less likely to have alerts of intrathoracic impedance (TI) decrease (p < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence (p = 0.031) and lower mean number of alerts per patient associated with TI decrease (p < 0.0001) and AF (p = 0.019) than the UC-RM group. HCTR significantly decreased the occurrence of alerts in RM of CIEDs, 0.360 (95%CI, 0.189–0.686; p = 0.002), in multivariable regression analysis. There were two deaths in the HCTR-RM group (0.96%) and no deaths in the UC-RM group (p = 1.0). There were no differences in the number of hospitalised patients between the HCTR-RM and UC-RM group (p = 1.0). Conclusions: HCTR significantly reduced the number of patients with RM alerts of CIEDs related to TI decrease and AF occurrence. There were no differences in mortality or hospitalisation rates between HCTR-RM and UC-RM groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document