BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) is increasingly employed for all types of cardiac implantable devices (CIED). However, there are only limited data on the acceptance of RM by the elderly. The aim of our study was to ascertain how octogenarians assess RM technologies compared to younger, presumably technically more literate patients, and what concerns or technical problems the system presents to both groups of patients. METHODS: The trial was designed as a descriptive, register-based single-center study. The study population consisted of all consecutive patients ≥ 80 years of age (group A, n = 94) and all consecutive patients aged ≤ 40 years (group B, n = 71), who had undergone implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) between the years of 2009 and 2018 and were using a Home MonitoringTM (HM, Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) system. All patients fulfilling entry criteria were approached with a request to participate in the survey. RESULTS: A total of 85 (90.4%) and 65 (91.5%) valid surveys were obtained for groups A and B, respectively. Ninety-two percent of patients in both groups (P = 0.903) were satisfied with the limited number of planned ambulatory follow-ups (i.e., once a year). All patients in both groups (100%) reported that they were satisfied with the HM system, and 97% and 94% of patients in Groups A and B, respectively, ranked it highly beneficial (P = 0.68). A significant proportion of patients in both groups were completely unaware of any health-related benefits associated with the use of the HM system (42% in Group A vs. 49% in Group B, P = 0.4). Among the most frequently reported personal benefits of HM were a sense of safety and security and savings on travel expenses and time. 5% and 9% of patients in Groups A and B, respectively, reported that usage of HM caused them some degree of psychological stress (P = 0.27). Nearly all patients in both groups reported receiving information on HM from their doctor after ICD implantation. None of Group A reported receiving information from a nurse either before or after ICD implantation, while 14% of Group B patients reported receiving information from a nurse after, but not before ICD implantation. Seven and 51% (P < 0.0001) of patients in Group A and B, respectively, sought additional information about HM post-discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The HM system received good marks and was much appreciated, even in patients over 80 years of age. The level of acceptance and potential psychological stress resulting from RM technology appears to be about the same in older patients as in younger patients. The majority of octogenarians either did not fully understand the clinical benefits of the system or mistakenly thought that the HM system was a substitute for emergency 24-h surveillance. These results highlight the need for better patient education relative to RM technology, with one option being to delegate more of this educational process to specially trained nurses.

Cardiac Center Department of Cardiology Ceske Budejovice Hospital Ceske Budejovice Czech Republic

Faculty of Health and Social Sciences the University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice Ceske Budejovice Czech Republic

Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry of Palacky University Olomouc Olomouc Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

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) Eur Heart J. 2013;34:2281–2329. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht150. PubMed DOI

Fauchier L, Alonso C, Anselme F, et al. Position paper for management of elderly patients with pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators: Groupe de Rythmologie et Stimulation Cardiaque de la Societe Francaise de Cardiologie and Societe Francaise de Geriatrie et Gerontologie. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2016;109:563–585. doi: 10.1016/j.acvd.2016.04.004. PubMed DOI

Slotwiner D, Varma N, Akar JG, et al. HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:e69–e100. PubMed

Dubner S, Auricchio A, Steinberg JS, et al. ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) Europace. 2012;14:278–293. doi: 10.1093/europace/eur303. PubMed DOI

Spinsante S, Antonicelli R, Mazzanti I, et al. Technological approaches to remote monitoring of elderly people in cardiology: a usability perspective. Int J Telemed Appl. 2012;2012:104561. PubMed PMC

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;18:891–975. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.592. PubMed DOI

Ricci RP, Morichelli L, Santini M. Home monitoring remote control of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients in clinical practice: impact on medical management and health-care resource utilization. Europace. 2008;10:164–170. doi: 10.1093/europace/eum289. PubMed DOI

Mabo P, Victor F, Bazin P, et al. A randomized trial of long- term remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients (the COMPAS trial) Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1105–1111. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr419. PubMed DOI PMC

Lazarus A. Remote, wireless, ambulatory monitoring of implantable pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy systems: analysis of a worldwide database. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007;30(Suppl 1):S2–S12. PubMed

Halimi F, Clementy J, Attuel P, et al. Optimized post-operative surveillance of permanent pacemakers by home monitoring: the OEDIPE trial. Europace. 2008;10:1392–1399. doi: 10.1093/europace/eun250. PubMed DOI PMC

Hindricks G, Elsner C, Piorkowski 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. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht207. PubMed DOI PMC

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;38:1749–1755. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx015. PubMed DOI PMC

Varma N, Epstein AE, Irimpen A, et al. Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) trial. Circulation. 2010;122:325–332. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.937409. PubMed DOI

Guedon-Moreau L, Lacroix D, Sadoul N, et al. Costs of remote monitoring vs. ambulatory follow-ups of implanted cardioverter defibrillators in the randomized ECOST study. Europace. 2014;16:1181–1188. doi: 10.1093/europace/euu012. PubMed DOI PMC

Hindricks G, Taborsky M, Glikson M, et al. Implant-based multiparameter telemonitoring of patients with heart failure (IN-TIME): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;384:583–590. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61176-4. PubMed DOI

Laurent G, Amara W, Mansourati J, et al. Role of patient education in the perception and acceptance of home monitoring after recent implantation of cardioverter defibrillators: the EDUCAT study. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2014;107:508–518. doi: 10.1016/j.acvd.2014.06.009. PubMed DOI

Malavolta M, Caraceni D, Olivieri F, et al. New challenges of geriatric cardiology: from clinical to preclinical research. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2017;14:223–232. PubMed PMC

Safarikova I, Bulava, A, Hajek P. Remote Monitoring of Cardiac Implantable Systems in Those Over 80 Years of Age. J Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2019;8:506.

Varma N, Ricci RP. Telemedicine and cardiac implants: what is the benefit? Eur Heart J. 2013;34:1885–1895. PubMed PMC

Bilge AK, Ozben B, Demircan S, et al. Depression and anxiety status of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator and precipitating factors. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29:619–626. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00409.x. PubMed DOI

Sola CL, Bostwick JM. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, induced anxiety, and quality of life. Mayo Clin Proc. 2005;80:232–237. doi: 10.4065/80.2.232. PubMed DOI

Kajanova A, Bulava A, Eisenberger M. Factors influencing psychological status and quality of life in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2014;35(Suppl 1):54–58. PubMed

Safarikova I, Bulava A. Remote monitoring of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Perception of the impact of monitoring and selected determinants of quality of life. Kontakt. 2018;20:e134–e143. doi: 10.1016/j.kontakt.2018.05.001. DOI