Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Patient experiences and preferences for follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction with remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) seems to be high, yet knowledge on long-term patient experiences is limited. The European REMOTE-CIED study explored patients' experiences with RPM, examined patient's preferences for ICD follow-up, and identified determinants of patient's preferences in the first 2 years postimplantation. METHODS: European heart failure patients (N = 300; median age = 66 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 59-73], and 22% female) with a first-time ICD received a Boston Scientific LATITUDE RPM system (Marlborough, MA, USA) and had scheduled in-clinic follow-ups once a year. Patients completed questionnaires at 1-2 weeks and also at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postimplantation and clinical data were obtained from their medical records. Patient evaluation data were analyzed descriptively, and Student's t-tests/Man-Whitney U tests or Chi-square tests/Fisher's exact tests were performed to examine determinants of patient preferences. RESULTS: At 2 years postimplantation, the median patient satisfaction score with the RPM system was 9 out of 10 (IQR = 8-10), despite 53% of the patients experiencing issues (eg, failure to transmit data). Of the 221 patients who reported their follow-up preferences, 43% preferred RPM and 19% preferred in-clinic follow-up. Patients with a preference for RPM were more likely to be higher educated (P = 0.04), employed (P = 0.04), and equipped with a new LATITUDE model (P = 0.04), but less likely to suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: In general, patients were highly satisfied with RPM, but a subgroup preferred in-clinic follow-up. Therefore, physicians should include patients' concerns and preferences in the decision-making process, to tailor device follow-up to individual patients' needs and preferences.

Shock efficacy of single and dual coil electrodes-new insights from the NORDIC ICD Trial.

Aims: Dual coil (DC) electrodes are preferred to single coil (SC) electrodes because of an assumed higher shock efficacy. However, DC-electrodes may be associated with an increased difficulty and risk of lead extraction. We aimed to compare SC- and DC-electrodes with respect to the first shock efficacy (FSE) after implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Methods and results: One thousand and seventy-seven patients of the NORDIC ICD trial were randomly assigned to first time ICD implantation with or without defibrillation (DF) testing. The electrode configuration was determined before randomization. One thousand and sixty-seven patients eventually received an ICD, 516 (48.4%) with a SC- and 551 (51.6%) with a DC-electrode. DC-electrodes were preferentially selected in older patients, renal failure, atrial fibrillation, dual chamber, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) devices, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin (AT) receptor blockers and without Sotalol. However, the preference of the investigational site was dominant over clinical parameters. The DF energy at the final electrode position was higher in SC-electrodes (adjusted difference +1.15 J; P = 0.005; only patients tested). Less patients with DC-electrodes required intra-operative system reconfiguration (adjusted difference -3.9; P = 0.046; only patients tested). Using mixed logistic regression, the FSE was 92.6% in SC- and 97.8% in DC-electrodes (adjusted odds ratio 4.3 (95% confidence interval [1.9, 9.8]; P < 0.001)). Conclusion: Dual coil-electrode selection mainly depends on the preference of the investigational site and seems to be preferred in older patients, renal failure, atrial fibrillation, dual chamber, and CRT devices. Patients with DC-electrodes required less intraoperative system reconfigurations. Dual coil-electrodes provided a substantially higher FSE during follow-up. Mortality rates were not significantly different in patients with DC- and SC-electrodes.