Outsourcing the Remote Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Medical Care Quality Improvement Project

Gabriele Giannola, Riccardo Torcivia, Riccardo Airò Farulla, Tommaso Cipolla, Gabriele Giannola, Riccardo Torcivia, Riccardo Airò Farulla, Tommaso Cipolla

Abstract

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; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT01007474.

Keywords: cardiac implantable electronic devices; follow-up; implantable cardioverter defibrillator; implantable defibrillators; pacemaker; remote monitoring; telemonitoring; triage outsourcing.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Gabriele Giannola, Riccardo Torcivia, Riccardo Airò Farulla, Tommaso Cipolla. Originally published in JMIR Cardio (http://cardio.jmir.org), 29.11.2019.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Remote management flowchart. Green events are all transmissions not reporting device detections listed as low or high priority. In case of missed scheduled transmissions or disconnected monitors, the external remote monitoring center (ERMC) inform the technical team responsible for contacting the patient. RRT: recommended replacement time; TAO: oral anticoagulation therapy; AT/AF: atrial tachyarrhythmia/atrial fibrillation; CRT: cardiac resynchronization therapy; SVC: superior vena cava. DOO, VOO, and AOO are programming modes.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Distribution of transmission by priority; (B) low-priority detected events; and (C) high-priority detected events. CRT-D: cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, ICD: single- or dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator, IPG: single- or dual-chamber pacemaker, CRT-P: cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Time from transmission to communication with the hospital.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(A) Distribution of time from transmission to review, benchmarking phase versus external remote monitoring center (ERMC) phase; and (B) Percentage of reviewed transmissions, benchmarking phase versus ERMC phase. RM: remote monitoring.

References

    1. Facchin D, Baccillieri MS, Gasparini G, Zoppo F, Allocca G, Brieda M, Verlato R, Proclemer A. Findings of an observational investigation of pure remote follow-up of pacemaker patients: is the in-clinic device check still needed? Int J Cardiol. 2016 Oct 01;220:781–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.162.
    1. Varma N, Epstein AE, Irimpen A, Schweikert R, Love C, TRUST Investigators Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) trial. Circulation. 2010 Jul 27;122(4):325–32. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.937409.
    1. Crossley GH, Boyle A, Vitense H, Chang Y, Mead RH, CONNECT Investigators The CONNECT (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision) trial: the value of wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Mar 08;57(10):1181–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.12.012.
    1. Landolina M, Perego GB, Lunati M, Curnis A, Guenzati G, Vicentini A, Parati G, Borghi G, Zanaboni P, Valsecchi S, Marzegalli M. Remote monitoring reduces healthcare use and improves quality of care in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: the evolution of management strategies of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (EVOLVO) study. Circulation. 2012 Jun 19;125(24):2985–92. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.088971.
    1. Boriani G, da Costa A, Ricci RP, Quesada A, Favale S, Iacopino S, Romeo F, Risi A, di S Stefano LM, Navarro X, Biffi M, Santini M, Burri H, MORE-CARE Investigators The MOnitoring Resynchronization dEvices and CARdiac patiEnts (MORE-CARE) randomized controlled trial: phase 1 results on dynamics of early intervention with remote monitoring. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 21;15(8):e167. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2608.
    1. Hindricks G, Elsner C, Piorkowski C, Taborsky M, Geller JC, Schumacher B, Bytesnik J, Kottkamp H. Quarterly vs. yearly clinical follow-up of remotely monitored recipients of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the REFORM trial. Eur Heart J. 2014 Jan;35(2):98–105. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht207.
    1. Boriani G, da Costa A, Quesada A, Ricci RP, Favale S, Boscolo G, Clementy N, Amori V, di S Stefano LM, Burri H, MORE-CARE Study Investigators Effects of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes and use of healthcare resources in heart failure patients with biventricular defibrillators: results of the MORE-CARE multicentre randomized controlled trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017 Mar;19(3):416–25. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.626.
    1. Böhm M, Drexler H, Oswald H, Rybak K, Bosch R, Butter C, Klein G, Gerritse B, Monteiro J, Israel C, Bimmel D, Käab S, Huegl B, Brachmann J, OptiLink HF Study Investigators Fluid status telemedicine alerts for heart failure: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Heart J. 2016 Nov 01;37(41):3154–63. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw099.
    1. Crossley GH, Chen J, Choucair W, Cohen TJ, Gohn DC, Johnson WB, Kennedy EE, Mongeon LR, Serwer GA, Qiao H, Wilkoff BL, PREFER Study Investigators Clinical benefits of remote versus transtelephonic monitoring of implanted pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Nov 24;54(22):2012–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.10.001.
    1. Hindricks G, Taborsky M, Glikson M, Heinrich U, Schumacher B, Katz A, Brachmann J, Lewalter T, Goette A, Block M, Kautzner J, Sack S, Husser D, Piorkowski C, Søgaard P, IN-TIME study group Implant-based multiparameter telemonitoring of patients with heart failure (IN-TIME): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014 Aug 16;384(9943):583–90. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61176-4.
    1. Zoppo F, Facchin D, Molon G, Zanotto G, Catanzariti D, Rossillo A, Baccillieri MS, Menard C, Comisso J, Gentili A, Grammatico A, Bertaglia E, Proclemer A. Improving atrial fibrillation detection in patients with implantable cardiac devices by means of a remote monitoring and management application. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2014 Dec;37(12):1610–8. doi: 10.1111/pace.12474.
    1. Guédon-Moreau L, Lacroix D, Sadoul N, Clémenty J, Kouakam C, Hermida J, Aliot E, Boursier M, Bizeau O, Kacet S, ECOST trial Investigators A randomized study of remote follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: safety and efficacy report of the ECOST trial. Eur Heart J. 2013 Feb;34(8):605–14. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs425.
    1. Raatikainen MJ, Uusimaa P, van Ginneken MM, Janssen JP, Linnaluoto M. Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: a safe, time-saving, and cost-effective means for follow-up. Europace. 2008 Oct;10(10):1145–51. doi: 10.1093/europace/eun203.
    1. Cronin E, Ching E, Varma N, Martin D, Wilkoff B, Lindsay B. Remote monitoring of cardiovascular devices: a time and activity analysis. Heart Rhythm. 2012 Dec;9(12):1947–51. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.08.002.
    1. Calò L, Gargaro A, de Ruvo E, Palozzi G, Sciarra L, Rebecchi M, Guarracini F, Fagagnini A, Piroli E, Lioy E, Chirico A. Economic impact of remote monitoring on ordinary follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators as compared with conventional in-hospital visits. A single-center prospective and randomized study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2013 Jun;37(1):69–78. doi: 10.1007/s10840-013-9783-9.
    1. Slotwiner D, Varma N, Akar JG, Annas G, Beardsall M, Fogel RI, Galizio NO, Glotzer TV, Leahy RA, Love CJ, McLean RC, Mittal S, Morichelli L, Patton KK, Raitt MH, Ricci RP, Rickard J, Schoenfeld MH, Serwer GA, Shea J, Varosy P, Verma A, Yu CM. HRS expert consensus statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm. 2015 Jul;12(7):e69–100. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.008.
    1. Gimbel JR. Remote device interrogation: when "nothing" really does matter. Heart Rhythm. 2012 Dec;9(12):1952–3. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.08.040.
    1. Dahlöf B. Cardiovascular disease risk factors: epidemiology and risk assessment. Am J Cardiol. 2010 Jan 04;105(1 Suppl):3A–9A. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.10.007.
    1. Boriani G, Gasparini M, Landolina M, Lunati M, Proclemer A, Lonardi G, Iacopino S, Rahue W, Biffi M, DiStefano P, Grammatico A, Santini M, ClinicalService cardiac centres Incidence and clinical relevance of uncontrolled ventricular rate during atrial fibrillation in heart failure patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011 Aug;13(8):868–76. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfr046. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfr046.
    1. Sneha S, Varshney U. Enabling ubiquitous patient monitoring: model, decision protocols, opportunities and challenges. Decis Support Syst. 2009 Feb 03;46(3):606–19. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2008.11.014.
    1. Ricci RP, Morichelli L, Varma N. Remote monitoring for follow-up of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2014 Aug;3(2):123–8. doi: 10.15420/aer.2014.3.2.123.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren