RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Remote management is partially replacing routine follow-up in patients implanted with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Although it reduces clinical staff time compared with standard in-office follow-up, a new definition of roles and responsibilities may be needed to review remote transmissions in an effective, efficient, and timely manner. Whether remote triage may be outsourced to an external remote monitoring center (ERMC) is still unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this health care quality improvement project was to evaluate the feasibility of outsourcing remote triage to an ERMC to improve patient care and health care resource utilization. METHODS: Patients (N=153) with implanted CIEDs were followed up for 8 months. An ERMC composed of nurses and physicians reviewed remote transmissions daily following a specific remote monitoring (RM) protocol. A 6-month benchmarking phase where patients' transmissions were managed directly by hospital staff was evaluated as a term of comparison. RESULTS: A total of 654 transmissions were recorded in the RM system and managed by the ERMC team within 2 working days, showing a significant time reduction compared with standard RM management (100% vs 11%, respectively, within 2 days; P<.001). A total of 84.3% (551/654) of the transmissions did not include a prioritized event and did not require escalation to the hospital clinician. High priority was assigned to 2.3% (15/654) of transmissions, which were communicated to the hospital team by email within 1 working day. Nonurgent device status events occurred in 88 cases and were communicated to the hospital within 2 working days. Of these, 11% (10/88) were followed by a hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The outsourcing of RM management to an ERMC safely provides efficacy and efficiency gains in patients' care compared with a standard in-hospital management. Moreover, the externalization of RM management could be a key tool for saving dedicated staff and facility time with possible positive economic impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01007474; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01007474.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the two approaches to chronic right ventricular pacing currently adopted in clinical practice: right ventricular apical (RVA) and non-RVA pacing. BACKGROUND: Chronic RVA pacing is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, morbidity, and even mortality. Non-RVA pacing may yield more physiologic ventricular activation and provide potential long-term benefits and has recently been adopted as standard procedure at many implanting centers. METHODS: The Right Pace study was a multicenter, prospective, single-blind, nonrandomized trial involving 437 patients indicated for dual-chamber pacemaker implantation with a high percentage of RV pacing. RESULTS: RV lead-tip target location was the apex or the interventricular septum. RVA (274) and non-RVA patients (163) did not differ in baseline characteristics. During a median follow-up of 19 months (25th-75th percentiles, 13-25), 17 patients died. The rates of the primary outcome of death due to any cause or hospitalization for heart failure were comparable between the groups (log-rank test, p = 0.609), as were the rates of the composite of death due to any cause, hospitalization for heart failure, or an increase in left ventricular end-systolic volume ≥ 15% as compared with the baseline evaluation (secondary outcome, p = 0.703). After central adjudication of X-rays, comparison between adjudicated RVA (239 patients) and non-RVA (170 patients) confirmed the absence of difference in the rates of primary (p = 0.402) and secondary (p = 0.941) outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with indications for dual-chamber pacemaker who require a high percentage of ventricular stimulation, RVA or non-RVA pacing resulted in comparable outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01647490).