Current studentsExisting staffContact us
 

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

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorParthiban, N.
dc.contributor.authorEsterman, A.
dc.contributor.authorMahajan, R.
dc.contributor.authorTwomey, D.
dc.contributor.authorPathak, R.
dc.contributor.authorLau, D.
dc.contributor.authorRoberts-Thomson, K.
dc.contributor.authorYoung, G.
dc.contributor.authorSanders, P.
dc.contributor.authorGanesan, A.
dc.date.issued2015
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: 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 literature 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.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityNirmalatiban Parthiban, Adrian Esterman, Rajiv Mahajan, Darragh J. Twomey, Rajeev K. Pathak, Dennis H. Lau, Kurt C. Roberts-Thomson, Glenn D. Young, Prashanthan Sanders, Anand N. Ganesan
dc.identifier.citationJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2015; 65(24):2591-2600
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.029
dc.identifier.issn0735-1097
dc.identifier.issn1558-3597
dc.identifier.orcidEsterman, A. [0000-0001-7324-9171]
dc.identifier.orcidMahajan, R. [0000-0003-3375-5568]
dc.identifier.orcidPathak, R. [0000-0002-7391-6867]
dc.identifier.orcidLau, D. [0000-0001-7753-1318] [0000-0002-1564-439X]
dc.identifier.orcidSanders, P. [0000-0003-3803-8429]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/99667
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.rights© 2015 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.029
dc.subjecthome monitoring
dc.subjectmortality
dc.subjectshock
dc.subjectsudden cardiac death
dc.titleRemote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Medicine publications