Suppr超能文献

基于警报的 ICD 随访:数字化驱动的远程患者监测模型。

Alert-Based ICD Follow-Up: A Model of Digitally Driven Remote Patient Monitoring.

机构信息

Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Department of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

出版信息

JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Aug;7(8):976-987. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.01.008. Epub 2021 Feb 24.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

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.

BACKGROUND

Conventional ambulatory care requires frequent IPEs. Many encounters are nonactionable, and additional unscheduled IPEs occur.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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).

摘要

目的

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。

背景

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。

方法

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。

结果

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)。

结论

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)。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验