Background: Launch of remote follow-up systems in Europe is currently underway. However, there is insufficient understanding of postimplant practices with respect to device follow-up, reprogramming of device features, and postshock clinic visits. Methods: We analyzed device-stored data from patients implanted with biventricular defibrillators (CRT-ICD) to characterize the management of patients in current clinical practice and the potential impact of remote follow-up systems. Results: Two hundred and seventeen patients were identified, all with complete device-data for at least one year. Over a follow-up period of 570 +/- 158 days, 1,959 device interrogations were performed. Of these, the majority (1,280, 65%) involved the reprogramming of device parameters. The mean time interval between interrogations was 70 +/- 25 days. Overall, a marked reduction of interrogations requiring reprogramming was observed between the first six months of follow-up and subsequent periods (from 3.6 +/- 1.8 to 1.1 +/- 1.0 interrogations/six months). A mean of 6.0 +/- 5.9 device parameters was reprogrammed during the first six months of follow-up, versus 4.4 +/- 5.6 (P = 0.000) during the subsequent period. From multivariate analysis, a higher-than-median number of interrogations was found to be significantly associated with defibrillator shocks (OR:2.51; 95%CI:1.42-4.42). Following a shock, a total of 133 interrogations in 60 patients were performed with 80% of these occurring within five days of the shock, and 49% did not require device reprogramming. Conclusion: Six months after implant, reprogramming of device parameters is significantly less frequent, making the use of remote follow-up systems a practical alternative for patients and physicians. Moreover, a considerable portion of post-shock interrogations does not involve reprogramming and may therefore be performed remotely.

Follow-up of CRT-ICD: implications for the use of remote follow-up systems. Data from the InSync ICD italian Registry.

B Sassone
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
2008

Abstract

Background: Launch of remote follow-up systems in Europe is currently underway. However, there is insufficient understanding of postimplant practices with respect to device follow-up, reprogramming of device features, and postshock clinic visits. Methods: We analyzed device-stored data from patients implanted with biventricular defibrillators (CRT-ICD) to characterize the management of patients in current clinical practice and the potential impact of remote follow-up systems. Results: Two hundred and seventeen patients were identified, all with complete device-data for at least one year. Over a follow-up period of 570 +/- 158 days, 1,959 device interrogations were performed. Of these, the majority (1,280, 65%) involved the reprogramming of device parameters. The mean time interval between interrogations was 70 +/- 25 days. Overall, a marked reduction of interrogations requiring reprogramming was observed between the first six months of follow-up and subsequent periods (from 3.6 +/- 1.8 to 1.1 +/- 1.0 interrogations/six months). A mean of 6.0 +/- 5.9 device parameters was reprogrammed during the first six months of follow-up, versus 4.4 +/- 5.6 (P = 0.000) during the subsequent period. From multivariate analysis, a higher-than-median number of interrogations was found to be significantly associated with defibrillator shocks (OR:2.51; 95%CI:1.42-4.42). Following a shock, a total of 133 interrogations in 60 patients were performed with 80% of these occurring within five days of the shock, and 49% did not require device reprogramming. Conclusion: Six months after implant, reprogramming of device parameters is significantly less frequent, making the use of remote follow-up systems a practical alternative for patients and physicians. Moreover, a considerable portion of post-shock interrogations does not involve reprogramming and may therefore be performed remotely.
2008
M, Lunati; M, Gasparini; M, Santini; M, Landolina; Gb, Perego; C, Pappone; Gasparini, M; Galimberti, P; Regoli, F; Gronda, E; Lunati, M; Cattafi, G; Magenta, G; Paolucci, M; Vecchi, R; Santini, M; Ricci, R; Gaita, F; Bocchiardo, M; Didonna, P; Caponi, D; Tavazzi, L; Landolina, M; Rordorf, R; Petracci, B; Vicentini, A; Deceglia, S; Cirò, A; Curnis, A; Mascioli, G; Puglisi, A; Bianchi, S; Sassara, M; Achilli, A; Turreni, F; Rossi, P; B Perego, G; A Ravazzi, P; Diotallevi, P; Tritto, M; Carboni, A; Ardissino, D; Gonzi, G; Serra, V; Vergara, G; Boriani, G; Biffi, M; Martignani, C; Frabetti, L; Orsola, S; Luzzi, G; Laurenzi, F; Pistis, G; Cesario, A; Zanotto, G; Orazi, S; Ometto, R; Bonanno, G; Molon, G; Barbieri, E; Raviele, A; Gasparini, G; Botto, G; Luzi, M; Sagone, A; Vado, A; Montenero, A; Inama, G; Sassone, B; Briedda, M; Zardo, F; Bertaglia, E; Proclemer, A; Zanon, F; Disertori, M; Gramegna, L; Delgreco, M; Dallafior, D; Tomasi, C; Maresta, A; Piancastelli, M; Bridda, A; Mantovan, R; Fusco, A; Vicentini, A; Baraldi, P; Lonardi, G; Rahue, W; Delise, P; Menozzi, C; Babudri, P; Marconi, R; F Alfano, De Fabrizio; Moscati, G; Barbato, G; Gelmini, P; Disabato, ; Ricci, S; D Aulerio, M; L Morgagni, G; Latini, R; Bardelli, G; Paulichl, R; Bernasconi, M; Marzegalli, M; Pappone, C; Vicedomini, G; Augello, G; Paglino, G; Neri, G; Occhetta, E; Bocconcelli, P; Capucci, A; Campana, A; Dibelardino, N; Vaglio, A
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2481379
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 32
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 32
social impact