RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Remote device monitoring is indicated under class I A standard of care according to the latest HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic. Despite this strong endorsement and the supporting data, the adoption of remote monitoring practices remains lower than expected. One cause of the underutilization of telemonitoring devices is work overload. Thus, a crucial point for improving the adoption of remote monitoring systems is ensuring their sustainability. MATERIALS AND METHOD: After analyzing the resources necessary to manage a device telemonitoring clinic, we initiated a process to reduce redundant transmissions: 1. eliminated scheduled loop recorder transmissions, retaining only alert transmissions; 2. reduced the frequency of the scheduled transmissions of pacemakers from four to one per year and the scheduled transmissions for defibrillators from four to two per year; and 3. optimized and customized the programming of device alerts with two primary interventions. RESULTS: These strategies allowed us to significantly reduce the number of transmissions/patient/year from 7.3 to 4.7. The first change was made in January 2020, which eliminated scheduled transmissions for loop recorders, reduced transmissions per patient from 14 to 10.4 for loop recorders, and decreased global transmissions per patient from 7.6 to 6.5. The subsequent adjustment in January 2021, which reduced the scheduled transmissions of pacemakers and defibrillators, further lowered transmissions per patient from 6.5 to 5.2 for pacemakers and from 4.7 to 3.1 for defibrillators. Additionally, enhanced attention to device reprogramming starting in January 2022 resulted in a further reduction in transmissions per patient from 5 to 4.7. CONCLUSION: Carrying out some simple changes in the number of scheduled transmissions and optimizing the programming of the devices made it possible to reduce the number of transmissions and make the remote monitoring of the devices more sustainable.
RESUMO
AIMS: Current guidelines recommend remote follow-up for all patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. However, the introduction of a remote follow-up service requires specifically dedicated organization. We evaluated the impact of adopting remote follow-up on the organization of a clinic and we measured healthcare resource utilization. METHODS: In 2016, we started the implementation of the remote follow-up service. Each patient was assigned to an experienced nurse and a doctor in charge with preestablished tasks and responsibilities. During 2016 and 2017, all patients on active follow-up at our center were included in the service; since 2018, the service has been fully operational for all patients following postimplantation hospital discharge. RESULTS: As of December 2018, 2024 patients were on active follow-up at the center. Of these, 93% of patients were remotely monitored according to the established protocol. The transmission rates were: 5.3/patient-year for pacemakers, 6.0/patient-year for defibrillators, and 14.1/patient-year for loop recorders. Only 21% of transmissions were submitted to the physician for further clinical evaluation, and 3% of transmissions necessitated an unplanned in-hospital visit for further assessment. Clinical events of any type were detected in 39% of transmissions. Overall, the nurses' total workload was 3596âh per year, that is, 1.95 full-time equivalent, which resulted in 1038âpatients/nurse. The total workload for physicians was 526âh per year, that is, 0.29 full-time equivalent. After 1 year on follow-up, most patients judged the service positively and expressed their preference for the new follow-up approach. CONCLUSION: A remote follow-up service can be implemented and efficiently managed by nursing staff with minimal physician support. Patients are followed up with greater continuity and seem to appreciate the service.