Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Department of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Aug;7(8):976-987. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.01.008. Epub 2021 Feb 24.
The goal of this study was to test whether continuous automatic remote patient monitoring (RPM) linked to centralized analytics reduces nonactionable in-person patient evaluation (IPE) but maintains detection of at-risk patients and provides actionable notifications.
Conventional ambulatory care requires frequent IPEs. Many encounters are nonactionable, and additional unscheduled IPEs occur.
Patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for Class I/IIa indications were randomized (2:1) to RPM or conventional follow-up, and they were followed up for 15 months. IPEs were conducted every 3 months in the conventional care group but at 3 and 15 months with RPM. Groups were compared for patient retention, nonactionable IPEs, and discovery of at-risk patients during 1 year of exclusive RPM. Frequency and value of RPM alerts were assessed.
Patients enrolled (mean age 63.5 ± 12.8 years; male 71.9%; left ventricular ejection fraction 29.0 ± 10.7%; primary prevention 72.3%; n = 1450) were similar between groups (977 RPM vs. 473 conventional care). Mean follow-up durations were 407 ± 103 days for the RPM group versus 399 ± 111 days for the conventional care group (p = 0.165). Patient attrition to follow-up was 42% greater with conventional care (20.1% [87 of 431]) versus RPM (14.2% [129 of 908]; p = 0.007). Nonactionable IPEs were reduced 81% by RPM (0.7 per patient year) compared with conventional care (3.6 per patient year; p < 0.001) but event discoveries remained similar (2.9 per patient year). In RPM, alert rate was median 1 per patient (interquartile range: 0 to 3) with >50% actionability, indicating low volume but high clinical value. Unscheduled IPE was the basis for discovery of 100% of intercurrent problems in RPM and also 75% in conventional care, indicating limited value of appointment-based follow-up for problem discovery. The number of IPEs needed to discover an actionable event was 8.2 in Conventional, 4.9 in RPM, and 2.1 when alert driven (p < 0.001).
RPM transformed ambulatory care to IPE directed to those patients with clinically actionable events when required. Filtering patient information by digitally driven remote monitoring expends fewer clinic resources while providing a greater yield of actionable interventions. (Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up [TRUST]; NCT00336284).
本研究旨在测试连续自动远程患者监测(RPM)与集中式分析相结合是否可以减少非必要的面对面患者评估(IPE),但仍能检测到高危患者并提供可操作的通知。
常规的门诊护理需要频繁进行 IPE。许多就诊是不必要的,而且还会发生额外的非计划性 IPE。
接受植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)治疗 I 类/IIa 适应证的患者被随机分为 RPM 组(2:1)或常规随访组,随访时间为 15 个月。在常规护理组中,每 3 个月进行一次 IPE,但在 RPM 组中,在 3 个月和 15 个月时进行 IPE。比较两组在 1 年的 RPM 专属期间的患者保留率、非必要的 IPE 和发现高危患者的情况。评估 RPM 警报的频率和价值。
两组患者(平均年龄 63.5 ± 12.8 岁;男性 71.9%;左心室射血分数 29.0 ± 10.7%;一级预防 72.3%;n = 1450)入组时相似(RPM 组 977 例,常规护理组 473 例)。RPM 组的平均随访时间为 407 ± 103 天,常规护理组为 399 ± 111 天(p = 0.165)。常规护理组的患者失访率比 RPM 组高 42%(20.1%[87/431]),RPM 组为 14.2%(129/908)(p = 0.007)。与常规护理组相比,RPM 组的非必要 IPE 减少了 81%(0.7 例/患者年)(3.6 例/患者年;p<0.001),但事件发现率相似(2.9 例/患者年)。在 RPM 组中,中位警报率为每例患者 1 次(四分位距:0 至 3),具有>50%的可操作性,表明数量少但临床价值高。RPM 中,100%的意外问题是通过非计划性 IPE 发现的,常规护理组中也有 75%是通过非计划性 IPE 发现的,这表明基于预约的随访对发现问题的价值有限。在常规护理组中,需要进行 8.2 次 IPE 才能发现可操作的事件,在 RPM 组中需要进行 4.9 次,在基于警报的情况下需要进行 2.1 次(p<0.001)。
RPM 将门诊护理转变为按需进行的针对有临床可操作事件的患者的 IPE。通过数字驱动的远程监测过滤患者信息,可在不增加诊所资源消耗的情况下,提供更多的可操作干预措施。(Lumos-T 安全减少常规设备随访[TRUST];NCT00336284)。