Vol 80, No 3 (2022)
Original article
Published online: 2022-01-18

open access

Page views 5075
Article views/downloads 590
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Is the last before-death alert remote monitoring transmission in patients with heart failure life-threatening?

Maciej Dyrbuś1, Mateusz Tajstra1, Anna Kurek, Łukasz Pyka1, Mariusz Gąsior1
Pubmed: 35040485
Kardiol Pol 2022;80(3):286-292.

Abstract

Background: Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) allows for a regular analysis of the occurrence of arrhythmias and functioning of the devices.
Aims: To date, no study investigated the characteristics of the alert-triggered ultimate transmissions before death, which was the aim of the present analysis.
Methods: Patients monitored remotely in our center, whose baseline characteristics were obtained from the COMMIT-HF Registry (NCT02536443) were analyzed and divided according to the occurrence of alert transmissions during the RM. In patients who had an alert transmission, the last transmission was analyzed. All RM data were obtained from the software provided by four RM manufacturers.
Results: Of 1271 patients with CIEDs which transmitted at least one message to the RM center, 198 (15.6%) had no alert transmissions, while 1073 (84.4%) had at least one alert transmission. Respective mortality in patients with and without alerts during RM was 29.7% and 12.6%, respectively. In patients who had ever an alert, the last recorded transmission before death was scheduled in 166 patients and alert-triggered in 152 patients. The most frequent alert-triggered last transmissions were atrial fibrillation/flutter (39.4%) and ventricular tachyarrhythmias (26.8%). The median period from the last alert-triggered transmission to death was 10 days.
Conclusion: This is the first analysis of the ultimate RM transmissions delivered by CIEDs before death. In approximately 85% of RM patients with CIEDs, at least one alert transmission occurred during the RM, and in patients who had ever an alert, almost half of the last transmissions before death were alert-triggered.

References

  1. Pocock SJ, Wang D, Pfeffer MA, et al. Predictors of mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27(1): 65–75.
  2. Ambrosy AP, Fonarow GC, Butler J, et al. The global health and economic burden of hospitalizations for heart failure: lessons learned from hospitalized heart failure registries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(12): 1123–1133.
  3. Crespo‐Leiro M, Anker S, Maggioni A, et al. European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long‐Term Registry (ESC‐HF‐LT): 1‐year follow‐up outcomes and differences across regions. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016; 18(6): 613–625.
  4. Breitenstein A, Steffel J. Devices in heart failure patients-who benefits from ICD and CRT? Front Cardiovasc Med. 2019; 6: 111.
  5. Goldenberg I, Hall WJ, Beck CA, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361(14): 1329–1338.
  6. Bardy G, Lee K, Mark D, et al. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator for congestive heart failure. New England Journal of Medicine. 2005; 352(3): 225–237.
  7. Gąsior M, Pyka Ł, Gorol J, et al. COnteMporary modalities in treatment of heart failure: a report from the COMMIT-HF registry. Kardiol Pol. 2016; 74(6): 523–528.
  8. Hindricks G, Taborsky M, Glikson M, et al. Implant-based multiparameter telemonitoring of patients with heart failure (IN-TIME): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2014; 384(9943): 583–590.
  9. Morgan JM, Kitt S, Gill J, et al. Remote management of heart failure using implantable electronic devices. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(30): 2352–2360.
  10. Malanchini G, Ferrari G, Leidi C, et al. Challenges in the remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices in 2021. Kardiol Pol. 2021; 79(4): 380–385.
  11. Tajstra M, Sokal A, Gadula-Gacek E, et al. Remote supervision to decrease hospitalization rate (RESULT) study in patients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillator. Europace. 2020; 22(5): 769–776.
  12. Wita M, Orszulak M, Szydło K, et al. Usefulness of telemedicine devices in patients with severe heart failure with implanted cardiac resynchronisation therapy system during two years of observation. Kardiol Pol. 2021 [Epub ahead of print].
  13. Hindricks G, Varma N, Kacet S, et al. Daily remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: insights from the pooled patient-level data from three randomized controlled trials (IN-TIME, ECOST, TRUST). Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(22): 1749–1755.
  14. Klersy C, Boriani G, De Silvestri A, et al. Effect of telemonitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices on healthcare utilization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in patients with heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016; 18(2): 195–204.
  15. Husser D, Christoph Geller J, Taborsky M, et al. Remote monitoring and clinical outcomes: details on information flow and workflow in the IN-TIME study. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2019; 5(2): 136–144.
  16. Kurek A, Tajstra M, Gadula-Gacek E, et al. Impact of remote monitoring on long-term prognosis in heart failure patients in a real-world cohort: results from all-comers COMMIT-HF trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017; 28(4): 425–431.
  17. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016; 18(8): 891–975.
  18. Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, et al. 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: The Task Force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace. 2013; 15(8): 1070–1118.
  19. Masarone D, Limongelli G, Rubino M, et al. Management of arrhythmias in heart failure. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2017; 4(1).
  20. O'Shea CJ, Middeldorp ME, Hendriks JM, et al. Remote monitoring alert burden: an analysis of transmission in >26,000 patients. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021; 7(2): 226–234.
  21. Henkel DM, Redfield MM, Weston SA, et al. Death in heart failure: a community perspective. Circ Heart Fail. 2008; 1(2): 91–97.
  22. Tajstra M, Dyrbuś M, Nożyński J, et al. The clinical value of the routine analysis of cardiac implantable electronic devices after the patient's death in a tertiary cardiovascular center. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2020; 130(6): 492–500.
  23. Varma N, Piccini JP, Snell J, et al. The relationship between level of adherence to automatic wireless remote monitoring and survival in pacemaker and defibrillator patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(24): 2601–2610.
  24. Crossley GH, Boyle A, Vitense H, et al. 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; 57(10): 1181–1189.



Polish Heart Journal (Kardiologia Polska)