Switching to a 100% remote follow-up of implantable cardiac electronic devices: Organizational model and results of a single center experience.

INTRODUCTION: During the SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 pandemic, the global health system needed to review important processes involved in daily routines such as outpatient activities within the hospital, including follow-up visits of implantable cardiac electronic devices (CIEDs) carried out in office. The aim of this study is to describe our 3.5 years of real-world experience of a full remote CIED follow-up, evaluate the success rate of remote transmissions, and verify the adopted organizational model. METHODS: From April 2020 to November 2023, all patients with an activated and well-functioning remote monitoring (RM) system and automatic algorithms, like autocapture and autosensing, underwent exclusive RM follow-up. Unscheduled in-office visits were only prompted by remote yellow or red alerts. Patients were divided into two groups, based on available technology: Manual Transmission System (MTS) and Automatic Transmission System (ATS). The ATS group, in addition to ensuring a daily transmission of any yellow or red alerts, was checked at least every 15 days to ensure a valid connection. An automatic transmission was scheduled once a year, irrespective of alerts occurred. The MTS group provided a manual transmission every 6 months. RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred thirty-seven consecutive patients were included in the study. By the end of November 2023, a total of 1409 patients (1192 in the ATS and 217 in the MTS group) were still actively followed by our remote clinic (384 expired, 137 dismissed, 7 transferred). The overall success rate of transmissions with the adopted organizational model was 96.6% in the ATS group (connection index) and 87% in the MTS group. Conventional in-hospital follow-up visits decreased by 44%. Total clinic working time, resulting from the sum of the time spent during in-hospital and remote follow-up, after an initial increase, was progressively reduced to the actual -25%. Mortality rate for any cause was 7.5% per year in remote follow-up patients and 8.3% (p=NS) in in-office patients. In the ATS group, no device malfunctions were notified to our remote clinic, before we had already realized it through appropriate alerts. CONCLUSIONS: The available technology makes moving to a 100% remote clinic possible, without overwhelming clinic workflow, safely. Adopting an appropriate organizational model, it is possible to maintain high transmission success rates. The automatic transmissions allow a more frequent control of patients with CIED.

Spontaneous abdominal bleeding associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection: causality or coincidence?

Authors present 6 cases of abdominal bleeding associated with COVID-19, representing 1.35% of all hospitalized COVID-19 patients and hypothesize that there could be, although not very frequently, a relationship between SARS-CoV2 and bleeding. They excluded a side effect of the low molecular weight heparin therapy that all patients underwent during the course of the disease or other possible causes. Alterations of the coagulation state or a weakness of the vascular wall due toa presumed endotheliitis SARS-CoV-2 infection induced, are hypothesized by the authors. Investigation and follow-up for possible hemorrhagic problems in patients with COVID-19 is recommended. In particular, clinicians should be vigilant about retroperitoneal hemorrhage in COVID-19 patients. In addition to the fact that these patients are being treated with anticoagulants, anemia and abdominal pain are the signs that should lead us to suspect this type of haemorrhage. More studies are needed to understand if COVID-19 can be directly associated with bleeding. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Triple Antithrombotic Therapy vs. Double Antithrombotic Therapy: One Scenario, 8 Questions, Many Conclusions.

In patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with the placement of stents, a triple antithrombotic therapy is empirically established, which consists of a combination of dual antithrombotic therapy (aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor) and an oral anticoagulant agent. This choice is guided by the desirable result of reducing cerebrovascular and coronary ischemic events. However, there is an unwelcome outcome: an increased incidence of bleeding. On this matter, in 2018, a North American Perspective Update was published, about a year later it was followed by the publication of the European focus update on the dual antiplatelet therapy. After analysing the main differences between these two consensus documents, this review aims at examining the major studies on which they are based on, as a starting point to define the foundation of new trials that can help shed light on this prominent topic.