Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes

Parthiban, Nirmalatiban, Esterman, Adrian, Mahajan, Rajiv, Twomey, Darragh J., Pathak, Rajeev K., Lau, Dennis H., Roberts-Thomson, Kurt C., Young, Glenn D., Sanders, Prashanthan, and Ganesan, Anand N. (2015) Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 65 (24). pp. 2591-2600.

[img] PDF (Published Version) - Published Version
Restricted to Repository staff only

View at Publisher Website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04...
 
83
8


Abstract

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.

Item ID: 46222
Item Type: Article (Research - C1)
ISSN: 1558-3597
Keywords: home monitoring; mortality; shock; sudden cardiac death
Funders: University of Adelaide (UA), National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
Date Deposited: 19 Dec 2016 23:58
FoR Codes: 11 MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES > 1102 Cardiovascular Medicine and Haematology > 110201 Cardiology (incl Cardiovascular Diseases) @ 100%
SEO Codes: 92 HEALTH > 9201 Clinical Health (Organs, Diseases and Abnormal Conditions) > 920103 Cardiovascular System and Diseases @ 100%
Downloads: Total: 8
More Statistics

Actions (Repository Staff Only)

Item Control Page Item Control Page