Virtual clinics for follow-up of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children.

There is growing interest in the use of digital medicine to reduce the need for traditional outpatient follow-up. Remote interrogation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators is now possible with most devices. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of virtual pacing clinics in following up children with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators, including epicardial systems. METHODS: The study was retrospective over 8 years (2010-2017), with review of patient records and analysis of downloads from the implantable cardiac devices to the virtual clinics. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were set up for virtual clinic follow-up during the study period, 94.5% with a pacemaker and 5.5% an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The majority (76.8%) had an epicardial system. Data on lead impedance, battery longevity, programmed parameters, detected arrhythmias, percentage pacing and delivered defibrillator therapies were obtainable by download. Lead threshold measurements were obtainable via download in 83.7% of the devices, including epicardial systems. No concerning device issue was missed. In 15% of patients a major issue was detected remotely, including three patients with lead fractures. The virtual clinics resulted in fewer hospital attendances while enhancing monitoring and enabling more frequent device checks. The vast majority (91.4%) of families who responded to a questionnaire were satisfied with the virtual clinic follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual clinics allow safe and effective follow-up of children with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators, including those with epicardial systems and are associated with high levels of parent satisfaction.

Comparison of a smartphone-based ECG recording system with a standard cardiac event monitor in the investigation of palpitations in children.

BACKGROUND: The AliveCor (Kardia) monitor attaches to a smartphone and allows a single-lead ECG to be recorded during symptoms. In 2016, we introduced the use of this smartphone device for investigating palpitations, without syncope, in children. The aim of our study was to review our experience with the smartphone device, comparing it with our previous standard conventional approach to cardiac event monitoring using the Cardiocall monitor, which uses skin electrodes and is given for a finite period. METHODS: Over a period of 24 months, 80 smartphone monitors were issued and compared with the most recent 100 conventional event monitors. The number of ECG recordings received, arrhythmias documented, quality of ECG recordings and patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: Median patient age was 11 years in the smartphone monitor group compared with 10 years in the conventional group. Seventy-nine of 80 (98%) patients with a smartphone monitor sent an ECG recorded during symptoms, compared with 62/100 (62%) from the conventional group. A total of 836 ECG recordings were sent from the smartphone monitors compared with 752 from the conventional group. Eight per cent of ECG recordings in each group were of inadequate quality for analysis. Twenty of 80 (25%) patients with a smartphone monitor had documented tachyarrhythmia compared with 6/100 (6%) patients with the conventional monitor (p<0.001). On comparison with the conventional approach, the smartphone monitor outperformed with respect to diagnostic yield and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: A smartphone-based event monitor allows simple, effective, long-term ECG event monitoring in children that is highly acceptable to the patient and parent.