Long-Term Remote vs. Conventional Monitoring of Pacemakers: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Remote monitoring (RM) is the standard of care for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), particularly pacemakers. However, the long-term outcomes of RM versus conventional monitoring (CM) of pacemakers and its effectiveness in reducing in-office (IO) visits for device reprogramming require elucidation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the RM and CM of pacemakers over a long-term follow-up.

RECENT FINDINGS

We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RM and CM of pacemakers with at least 12 months of follow-up. Binary endpoints were pooled with risk ratios (RRs), whereas continuous outcomes were computed using mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I statistics. Among the eight included RCTs, 2159 (48.9%) of 4063 patients underwent RM. Follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 24 months. There were no significant between-group differences in all-cause mortality (RR = 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.57; p = 0.22; I = 0%), stroke (RR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.43-1.91; p = 0.79; I = 23%), hospitalizations for cardiovascular and/or device-related adverse events (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.21; p = 0.70; I = 0%), and quality of life (SMD = - 0.06; 95% CI, - 0.22 to 0.10; p = 0.473; I = 0%). RM was associated with fewer IO visits/patient/year (MD = 0.98; 95% CI, - 1.64 to - 0.33; p = 0.08; I = 98%) and higher rates of atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) detection (RR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; p = 0.04; I = 0%) than was CM. This meta-analysis suggests that RM of pacemakers leads to higher rates of ATA detection and fewer IO visits/patient/year, without compromising patient safety.