Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T04:44:14.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implantable cardiac devices: the utility of remote monitoring in a paediatric and CHD population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2017

Melissa M. Olen  and
Brynn Dechert-Crooks
Melissa M. Olen*
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiology/Electrophysiology, Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, Miami, Florida, United States of America
Brynn Dechert-Crooks
Affiliation:
CS Mott Children’s Hospital Congenital Heart Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
*
Correspondence to: M. M. Olen, MSN, ARNP-C, FNP-C, CCRN, Department of Cardiology/Electrophysiology, Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, 3100 SW 62 Ave., Miami, FL 33155, United States of America, Tel: 305 662 8301; Fax: 305-662-8304; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Remote monitoring in the modern era has improved outcomes for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. There are many advantages to remote monitoring, including improved quality of life for patients, decreased need for in-office interrogation, and secondary reduced costs. Patient safety and enhanced survival remain the most significant benefit. With most of the published literature on this topic being focussed on adults, paediatric outcomes continue to be defined. This is a review of the benefits of remote monitoring in paediatrics and in patients with CHD.

Keywords

Remote monitoringremote interrogationcardiac implantable electronic devicesCHDpaediatrics
Type
Original Articles
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 27 , Supplement S1: Sudden Cardiac Arrest in the Young: A Contemporary Perspective , January 2017 , pp. S143 - S146
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hernandez-Madrid, A, Lewalter, T, Proclemer, A, Pison, L, Lip, G, Blomstrom-Lundqvist, C. Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices in Europe: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey. Europace 2013; 16: 129–132.Google Scholar
2. Boyer, S, Silka, M, Bar-Cohen, Y. Current practices in the monitoring of cardiac rhythm devices in pediatrics and congenital heart disease. Pediatr Cardiol 2015; 36: 821–826.Google Scholar
3. Atallah, J, Erickson, CC, Cecchin, F, et al. Multi-institutional study of implantable defibrillator lead performance in children and young adults: results of the pediatric lead extractability and survival evaluation (PLEASE) study. Circulation 2013; 127: 2393–2402.Google Scholar
4. Crossley, G, Boyle, A, Vitense, H, Chang, M, Mead, H. The CONNECT (Clinical evaluation of remote notification to reduce time to clinical decision) Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57: 1181–1189.Google Scholar
5. Landolina, M, Perego, GB, Lunati, M, et al. 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 (EVOLO) study. Circulation 2012; 125: 2985–2992.Google Scholar
6. Calo, L, Gargaro, A, De Ruvo, E, et al. 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; 37: 69–78.Google Scholar
7. Guedon-Moreau, L, Lacroix, D, Sadoul, N, et al. A randomized study of remote follow up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: safety and efficacy report of the ECOST trial. Eur Heart J 2012; 34: 605–614.Google Scholar
8. Hindriks, G, Elsner, C, Piokowski, C, et al. Quarterly vs. yearly clinical follow-up of remotely monitored recipients of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the REFORM trial. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 98–105.Google Scholar
9. Saxon, LA, Hayes, DL, Gilliam, FR, et al. Long-term outcome after ICD and CRT implantation and influence of remote device follow up: the ALTITUDE survival study. Circulation 2010; 122: 2359–2367.Google Scholar
10. Malloy, LE, Gingerich, J, Olson, MD, Atkins, DL. Remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable devices in the pediatric population improves detection of adverse events. Pediatr Cardiol 2013; 35: 301–306.Google Scholar
11. Dechert, BE, Serwer, GA, Bradley, DJ, Dick, M 2nd, LaPage, MJ. Cardiac implantable electronic device remote monitoring surveillance in pediatric congenital heart disease: utility of relative frequency. Heart Rhythm 2015; 12: 117–122.Google Scholar