The patient perspective on remote monitoring of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Narrative review and future directions

I.A.L. Timmermans, M.M. Meine, E. Zitron, J.W.M.G. Widdershoven, G. Kimman, S. Prevot, T. Rauwolf, F. Anselme, I. Szendey, J. Romero Roldan, P. Mabo, B. Schaer, J. Denollet, H. Versteeg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Background
Studies have shown that remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is at least comparable to in-clinic follow-up with regard to clinical outcomes and might be cost-effective, yet RPM is not standard clinical practice within Europe. Better insight into the patient perspective on RPM may aid in its acceptance, implementation, and reimbursement. This narrative review (1) summarizes existing evidence on the impact of RPM on patient-reported outcomes and (2) discusses future directions in examining the patient perspective.
Methods and Results
Literature review indicated that only five randomized trials on RPM in ICD patients included patient-reported outcomes, with inconclusive results. Observational studies show a trend toward good patient satisfaction and acceptation of RPM. Yet, results should be interpreted with caution due to a number of limitations including a potential selection bias, use of generic/nonvalidated questionnaires, relatively short follow-up durations, and a lack of subgroup identification.
Conclusion
Although RPM seems to be safe, effective, timely, and efficient, the patient perspective has received little attention so far. The scarce evidence on patient-reported outcomes in RPM studies seems to be positive, but future trials with a follow-up of ≥12 months and validated patient-reported outcome measures are needed. The REMOTE-CIED study from our group is the first prospective randomized controlled trial primarily designed to examine the patient perspective on RPM, and is powered to identify characteristics associated with RPM satisfaction and benefit. Results are expected in 2018 and will add valuable information to the current evidence.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)826–833
JournalPACE. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume40
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Physiologic Monitoring
Selection Bias

Cite this

Timmermans, I.A.L. ; Meine, M.M. ; Zitron, E. ; Widdershoven, J.W.M.G. ; Kimman, G. ; Prevot, S. ; Rauwolf, T. ; Anselme, F. ; Szendey, I. ; Romero Roldan, J. ; Mabo, P. ; Schaer, B. ; Denollet, J. ; Versteeg, H. / The patient perspective on remote monitoring of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator : Narrative review and future directions. In: PACE. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 2017 ; Vol. 40, No. 7. pp. 826–833.
@article{20ac751c868e4e4eba72765dfb931fd6,
title = "The patient perspective on remote monitoring of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Narrative review and future directions",
abstract = "BackgroundStudies have shown that remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is at least comparable to in-clinic follow-up with regard to clinical outcomes and might be cost-effective, yet RPM is not standard clinical practice within Europe. Better insight into the patient perspective on RPM may aid in its acceptance, implementation, and reimbursement. This narrative review (1) summarizes existing evidence on the impact of RPM on patient-reported outcomes and (2) discusses future directions in examining the patient perspective.Methods and ResultsLiterature review indicated that only five randomized trials on RPM in ICD patients included patient-reported outcomes, with inconclusive results. Observational studies show a trend toward good patient satisfaction and acceptation of RPM. Yet, results should be interpreted with caution due to a number of limitations including a potential selection bias, use of generic/nonvalidated questionnaires, relatively short follow-up durations, and a lack of subgroup identification.ConclusionAlthough RPM seems to be safe, effective, timely, and efficient, the patient perspective has received little attention so far. The scarce evidence on patient-reported outcomes in RPM studies seems to be positive, but future trials with a follow-up of ≥12 months and validated patient-reported outcome measures are needed. The REMOTE-CIED study from our group is the first prospective randomized controlled trial primarily designed to examine the patient perspective on RPM, and is powered to identify characteristics associated with RPM satisfaction and benefit. Results are expected in 2018 and will add valuable information to the current evidence.",
author = "I.A.L. Timmermans and M.M. Meine and E. Zitron and J.W.M.G. Widdershoven and G. Kimman and S. Prevot and T. Rauwolf and F. Anselme and I. Szendey and {Romero Roldan}, J. and P. Mabo and B. Schaer and J. Denollet and H. Versteeg",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1111/pace.13123",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "826–833",
journal = "PACE. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology",
issn = "0147-8389",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "7",

}

Timmermans, IAL, Meine, MM, Zitron, E, Widdershoven, JWMG, Kimman, G, Prevot, S, Rauwolf, T, Anselme, F, Szendey, I, Romero Roldan, J, Mabo, P, Schaer, B, Denollet, J & Versteeg, H 2017, 'The patient perspective on remote monitoring of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Narrative review and future directions', PACE. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 826–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.13123

The patient perspective on remote monitoring of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator : Narrative review and future directions. / Timmermans, I.A.L.; Meine, M.M.; Zitron, E.; Widdershoven, J.W.M.G.; Kimman, G.; Prevot, S.; Rauwolf, T.; Anselme, F.; Szendey, I.; Romero Roldan, J.; Mabo, P.; Schaer, B.; Denollet, J.; Versteeg, H.

In: PACE. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, Vol. 40, No. 7, 2017, p. 826–833.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The patient perspective on remote monitoring of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator

T2 - Narrative review and future directions

AU - Timmermans, I.A.L.

AU - Meine, M.M.

AU - Zitron, E.

AU - Widdershoven, J.W.M.G.

AU - Kimman, G.

AU - Prevot, S.

AU - Rauwolf, T.

AU - Anselme, F.

AU - Szendey, I.

AU - Romero Roldan, J.

AU - Mabo, P.

AU - Schaer, B.

AU - Denollet, J.

AU - Versteeg, H.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - BackgroundStudies have shown that remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is at least comparable to in-clinic follow-up with regard to clinical outcomes and might be cost-effective, yet RPM is not standard clinical practice within Europe. Better insight into the patient perspective on RPM may aid in its acceptance, implementation, and reimbursement. This narrative review (1) summarizes existing evidence on the impact of RPM on patient-reported outcomes and (2) discusses future directions in examining the patient perspective.Methods and ResultsLiterature review indicated that only five randomized trials on RPM in ICD patients included patient-reported outcomes, with inconclusive results. Observational studies show a trend toward good patient satisfaction and acceptation of RPM. Yet, results should be interpreted with caution due to a number of limitations including a potential selection bias, use of generic/nonvalidated questionnaires, relatively short follow-up durations, and a lack of subgroup identification.ConclusionAlthough RPM seems to be safe, effective, timely, and efficient, the patient perspective has received little attention so far. The scarce evidence on patient-reported outcomes in RPM studies seems to be positive, but future trials with a follow-up of ≥12 months and validated patient-reported outcome measures are needed. The REMOTE-CIED study from our group is the first prospective randomized controlled trial primarily designed to examine the patient perspective on RPM, and is powered to identify characteristics associated with RPM satisfaction and benefit. Results are expected in 2018 and will add valuable information to the current evidence.

AB - BackgroundStudies have shown that remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is at least comparable to in-clinic follow-up with regard to clinical outcomes and might be cost-effective, yet RPM is not standard clinical practice within Europe. Better insight into the patient perspective on RPM may aid in its acceptance, implementation, and reimbursement. This narrative review (1) summarizes existing evidence on the impact of RPM on patient-reported outcomes and (2) discusses future directions in examining the patient perspective.Methods and ResultsLiterature review indicated that only five randomized trials on RPM in ICD patients included patient-reported outcomes, with inconclusive results. Observational studies show a trend toward good patient satisfaction and acceptation of RPM. Yet, results should be interpreted with caution due to a number of limitations including a potential selection bias, use of generic/nonvalidated questionnaires, relatively short follow-up durations, and a lack of subgroup identification.ConclusionAlthough RPM seems to be safe, effective, timely, and efficient, the patient perspective has received little attention so far. The scarce evidence on patient-reported outcomes in RPM studies seems to be positive, but future trials with a follow-up of ≥12 months and validated patient-reported outcome measures are needed. The REMOTE-CIED study from our group is the first prospective randomized controlled trial primarily designed to examine the patient perspective on RPM, and is powered to identify characteristics associated with RPM satisfaction and benefit. Results are expected in 2018 and will add valuable information to the current evidence.

U2 - 10.1111/pace.13123

DO - 10.1111/pace.13123

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 826

EP - 833

JO - PACE. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

JF - PACE. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

SN - 0147-8389

IS - 7

ER -