Journal
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 65, Issue 24, Pages 2591-2600Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.029
Keywords
home monitoring; mortality; shock; sudden cardiac death
Categories
Funding
- University of Adelaide
- National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
- National Heart Foundation of Australia
- Biosense-Webster
- Medtronic
- St. Jude Medical
- Boston Scientific
- Merck
- Sharpe and Dohme
- Biotronik
- Sanofi
- Sorin
Ask authors/readers for more resources
BACKGROUND Remote monitoring (RM) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) is an established technology integrated into clinical practice. One recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) and several large device database studies have demonstrated a powerful survival advantage for ICD patients undergoing RM compared with those receiving conventional in-office (IO) follow-up. OBJECTIVES This study sought to conduct a systematic published data review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing RM with IO follow-up. METHODS Electronic databases and reference lists were searched for RCTs reporting clinical outcomes in ICD patients who did or did not undergo RM. Data were extracted from 9 RCTs, including 6,469 patients, 3,496 of whom were randomized to RM and 2,973 to IO follow-up. RESULTS In the RCT setting, RM demonstrated clinical outcomes comparable with office follow-up in terms of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.83; p = 0.285), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.66; p = 0.103), and hospitalization (OR: 0.83; p = 0.196). However, a reduction in all-cause mortality was noted in the 3 trials using home monitoring (OR: 0.65; p = 0.021) with daily verification of transmission. Although the odds of receiving any ICD shock were similar in RM and IO patients (OR: 1.05; p = 0.86), the odds of inappropriate shock were reduced in RM patients (OR: 0.55; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates that RM and IO follow-up showed comparable overall outcomes related to patient safety and survival, with a potential survival benefit in RCTs using daily transmission verification. RM benefits include more rapid clinical event detection and a reduction in inappropriate shocks. (C) 2015 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available