{"title":"Smartphone-based cardiac implantable electronic device remote monitoring: improved compliance and connectivity.","authors":"Harish Manyam, Haran Burri, Ruben Casado-Arroyo, Niraj Varma, Carsten Lennerz, Didier Klug, Gerald Carr-White, Kranthi Kolli, Ignacio Reyes, Yelena Nabutovsky, Giuseppe Boriani","doi":"10.1093/ehjdh/ztac071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Remote monitoring (RM) is the standard of care for follow up of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. The aim of this study was to compare smartphone-based RM (SM-RM) using patient applications (myMerlinPulse™ app) with traditional bedside monitor RM (BM-RM).</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>The retrospective study included de-identified US patients who received either SM-RM or BM-RM capable of implantable cardioverter defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (Abbott, USA). Patients in SM-RM and BM-RM groups were propensity-score matched on age and gender, device type, implant year, and month. Compliance with RM was quantified as the proportion of patients enrolling in the RM system (Merlin.net™) and transmitting data at least once. Connectivity was measured by the median number of days between consecutive transmissions per patient. Of the initial 9714 patients with SM-RM and 26 679 patients with BM-RM, 9397 patients from each group were matched. Remote monitoring compliance was higher in SM-RM; significantly more patients with SM-RM were enrolled in RM compared with BM-RM (94.4 vs. 85.0%, <i>P</i> < 0.001), similar number of patients in the SM-RM group paired their device (95.1 vs. 95.0%, <i>P</i> = 0.77), but more SM-RM patients transmitted at least once (98.1 vs. 94.3%, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Connectivity was significantly higher in the SM-RM, with patients transmitting data every 1.2 (1.1, 1.7) vs. every 1.7 (1.5, 2.0) days with BM-RM (<i>P</i> < 0.001) and remained better over time. Significantly more SM-RM patients utilized patient-initiated transmissions compared with BM-RM (55.6 vs. 28.1%, <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this large real-world study, patients with SM-RM demonstrated improved compliance and connectivity compared with BM-RM.</p>","PeriodicalId":72965,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal. Digital health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8c/8f/ztac071.PMC9890086.pdf","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal. Digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztac071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Aims: Remote monitoring (RM) is the standard of care for follow up of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. The aim of this study was to compare smartphone-based RM (SM-RM) using patient applications (myMerlinPulse™ app) with traditional bedside monitor RM (BM-RM).
Methods and results: The retrospective study included de-identified US patients who received either SM-RM or BM-RM capable of implantable cardioverter defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (Abbott, USA). Patients in SM-RM and BM-RM groups were propensity-score matched on age and gender, device type, implant year, and month. Compliance with RM was quantified as the proportion of patients enrolling in the RM system (Merlin.net™) and transmitting data at least once. Connectivity was measured by the median number of days between consecutive transmissions per patient. Of the initial 9714 patients with SM-RM and 26 679 patients with BM-RM, 9397 patients from each group were matched. Remote monitoring compliance was higher in SM-RM; significantly more patients with SM-RM were enrolled in RM compared with BM-RM (94.4 vs. 85.0%, P < 0.001), similar number of patients in the SM-RM group paired their device (95.1 vs. 95.0%, P = 0.77), but more SM-RM patients transmitted at least once (98.1 vs. 94.3%, P < 0.001). Connectivity was significantly higher in the SM-RM, with patients transmitting data every 1.2 (1.1, 1.7) vs. every 1.7 (1.5, 2.0) days with BM-RM (P < 0.001) and remained better over time. Significantly more SM-RM patients utilized patient-initiated transmissions compared with BM-RM (55.6 vs. 28.1%, P < 0.001).
Conclusion: In this large real-world study, patients with SM-RM demonstrated improved compliance and connectivity compared with BM-RM.
目的:远程监测(RM)是心脏植入式电子装置患者随访的标准护理。本研究的目的是比较使用患者应用程序(myMerlinPulse™应用程序)的基于智能手机的RM (SM-RM)与传统床边监护RM (BM-RM)。方法和结果:回顾性研究纳入了接受SM-RM或BM-RM的美国患者,这些患者能够植入心律转复除颤器或心脏再同步化治疗除颤器(Abbott, USA)。SM-RM组和BM-RM组患者在年龄和性别、器械类型、种植年份和月份上的倾向评分相匹配。RM的依从性被量化为入组RM系统(Merlin.net™)并至少传送一次数据的患者比例。连通性通过每位患者连续传输之间的中位数天数来衡量。在最初的9714例SM-RM患者和26679例BM-RM患者中,每组匹配9397例患者。SM-RM的远程监控依从性较高;与BM-RM相比,更多的SM-RM患者参加了RM (94.4 vs. 85.0%, P < 0.001), SM-RM组中配对设备的患者数量相似(95.1 vs. 95.0%, P = 0.77),但更多的SM-RM患者至少传播一次(98.1 vs. 94.3%, P < 0.001)。SM-RM的连通性显著更高,患者每1.2(1.1,1.7)天传输数据,而BM-RM每1.7(1.5,2.0)天传输数据(P < 0.001),并且随着时间的推移保持更好。与BM-RM相比,SM-RM患者使用患者源性传播的比例明显更高(55.6% vs. 28.1%, P < 0.001)。结论:在这项大型现实世界研究中,与BM-RM相比,SM-RM患者表现出更好的依从性和连通性。