A randomized controlled clinical trial of pacemaker follow-up in clinic and by telemedical interpretation of the pacemakers' magnet mode

Abstract

We assessed a two-stage follow-up procedure for cardiac pacemakers, where in-clinic follow-ups were partly replaced by telemedical follow-ups. This was compared with the standard follow-up regime (in-clinic follow-up only). The new procedure required an electronic patient record, a telemedical follow-up unit for recording ECGs while the pacemaker was temporarily set to magnet mode, an ECG processing unit, and a reviewing and reporting unit. A total of 177 (86 female) patients were randomized to the control group and 182 (98 female) patients to the telemedicine group. In the telemedicine group, 234 telemedical follow-ups were performed. Out of these, 68 required an additional in-clinic follow-up, while 166 were sufficient for assessing the pacemakers' working status. During the study, there were 19 deaths in the telemedicine group and 20 in the control group. There was no significant difference between the two groups(P = 0.40). The probability that an individual patient’s pacemaker would not to be replaced over time was analysed in a similar way to the Kaplan-Meier survival function. Fewer pacemakers were replaced in the telemedicine group (14) than in the control group (18), but the difference was not significant (P = 0.26). We conclude that alternating telemedical and in-clinic follow-ups brings no additional risks for patients. The follow-up procedure is feasible and interpretation of the pacemakers’ magnet effect provides an easy-to-use, manufacturer-independent method of assessing the pacemakers’ working status. This should reduce the patient load on pacemaker centres and decrease the overall costs of pacemaker therapy.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Roberts

. Follow up and optimisation of cardiac pacing. Heart 2005; 91: 1229–34.

Sutton

. Guidelines for pacemaker follow up. Report of a British Pacing and Electrophysiology Group (BPEG). Heart 1996; 76: 458–460.

Vardas

Auricchio

Blanc

. Guidelines for cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: The Task Force for Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 2256–95.

Gregoratos

Abrams

Epstein

. ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices: summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/NASPE Committee to Update the 1998 Pacemaker Guidelines). J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2002; 13: 1183–99.

Kainz W. Richtlinien zur Nachsorge antibradykarder Schrittmachersysteme. J Kardiol 1999; (Suppl. F): 15–18 [German].

Wilkoff

Auricchio

Brugada

. HRS/EHRA expert consensus on the monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations. Heart Rhythm 2008; 5: 907–25.

Grendahl

. Pacemaker follow-up with prolonged intervals in the stable period 1 to 5 years postimplant. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1996; 19: 1219–24.

Lampadius MS. Herzschrittmacher-Typenkartei. Kochel am See: Herzschrittmacher-Institut, 2010 [German].

Fox

Mackenzie

Flemming

Warren

. The effectiveness of transtelephonic monitoring of pacemaker function in pediatric patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2007; 30: 725–9.

10.

Calisto

Faria

Pego

. A follow-up by telephone of patients wearing a pacemaker – the experience of the Cardiac Pacing Center of the Hospitais de Universidade de Coimbra. Rev Port Cardiol 1993; 12: 551–5. 510 [Portuguese].

11.

Dreifus

Zinberg

Hurzeler

. Transtelephonic monitoring of 25,919 implanted pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1986; 9: 371–8.

12.

Liberman

Spotnitz

Hordof

Friedman

Starc

Silver

. Usefulness of transtelephonic monitoring in epicardial pacemaker systems. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2013; 36: 684–7.

13.

Platt

Furman

Gross

Andrews

Benedek

. Transtelephone monitoring for pacemaker follow-up 1981-1994. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1996; 19: 2089–98.

14.

Dubner

Auricchio

Steinberg

. ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol 2012; 17: 36–56.

15.

Burri

Senouf

. Remote monitoring and follow-up of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Europace 2009; 11: 701–9.

16.

Stellbrink

Trappe

. The follow-up of cardiac devices: what to expect for the future? Eur Heart J Suppl 2007; 9(Suppl. I): 113–115.

17.

Marinskis

van Erven

Bongiorni

. Practices of cardiac implantable electronic device follow-up: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey. Europace 2012; 14: 423–5.

18.

Crossley

Chen

Choucair

. Clinical benefits of remote versus transtelephonic monitoring of implanted pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54: 2012–9.

19.

Schreier

Hayn

Kollmann

. Automated and manufacturer independent assessment of the battery status of implanted cardiac pacemakers by electrocardiogram analysis. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2004; 1: 76–9.

20.

Kollmann

Hayn

García

. Feasibility of a telemedicine framework for collaborative pacemaker follow-up. J Telemed Telecare 2007; 13: 341–7.

21.

Kollmann A, Hayn D, Kastner P, et al. Pilotstudie zur herstellerunabhängigen, UMTS-gestützten Herzschrittmacher-Nachsorge. pp 164–166 in: Klar R, Köpcke W, Kuhn K, Lax H, Weiland S, Zaiß A, eds. Tagungsband der 50. Freiburg im Breisgau: GMS, 2005 [German].

22.

Lercher

Tudth

Linder

. Very positive patient feedback along with dramatic time savings in use of remote follow-up of ICD patients. Heart Rhythm 2009; 6: 258–258.

23.

Fauchier

Sadoul

Kouakam

. Potential cost savings by telemedicine-assisted long-term care of implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2005; 28(Suppl. 1): 255–9.