New findings could boost remote monitoring
Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/21/2020 - 14:18
Display Headline
HRS: Cardiac device remote monitoring drops hospitalizations, costs

BOSTON – Remote monitoring of implanted cardiac devices, already known to save lives, also reduced all-cause hospitalizations and cut hospitalization costs substantially in a review of more than 92,000 U.S. patients followed for 5 years.

The analysis showed that for every 100,000 patient-years of remote monitoring of implanted pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, there were 9,810 fewer all-cause hospitalizations, 119,000 fewer days spent hospitalized, and a savings of more than $370 million, compared with similar patients who did not undergo remote monitoring, Dr. Jonathan P. Piccini, Sr. said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Jonathan P. Piccini, Sr.

While these results are perhaps the first to document the impact of remote monitoring of implanted cardiac devices on health care use and cost, several previously reported study findings showed the positive impact of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes. For example, the IN-TIME (Influence of Home Monitoring on the Clinical Status of Heart Failure Patients With an Impaired Left Ventricular Function) trial randomized 664 patients with either ICDs or CRT devices to remote monitoring plus clinic visits or to monitoring by clinic visits only. After 1 year, patients on remote monitoring had a statistically significant 37% reduction in bad clinical outcomes, compared with the control patients (Lancet 2014;384:583-90). And findings from an observational study recently published by Dr. Piccini and his associates that involved 269,471 Americans with cardiac devices showed that 47% used remote monitoring, and the survival rate among users ran double that of patients with devices who did not undergo remote monitoring (J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015 [doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.033]).

Despite this evidence for a substantial clinical benefit, remote monitoring has not become routine for U.S. patients with a pacemaker, ICD, or CRT device. During the period April 2008–March 2013 studied by Dr. Piccini and his associates using a health insurance claims database representative of the U.S. adult population, of 92,566 patients with an implanted device, 34,259 (37%) underwent remote monitoring.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Michael R. Gold

“Remote monitoring has been underutilized,” commented Dr. Michael R. Gold, chief of cardiology and medical director of the Heart and Vascular Center at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. One reason that patients don’t undergo remote monitoring today is that many remote monitoring systems require a land line telephone for data collection and transmittal, while many patients now just have a mobile phone, Dr. Gold said. Mobile phone adapters are available but the patient must buy one.

Remote monitoring can dramatically reduce the need for office visits by patients, Dr. Gold said. “Without remote monitoring we see patients with devices every 3 months; with remote monitoring I usually see then once a year,” he said.

Remote monitoring may now start increasing, driven by the compelling evidence of efficacy and cost saving and also by the statement released in mid-May by the an expert consensus panel of the Heart Rhythm Society that remote monitoring ”represents the new standard of care” for patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (Heart Rhythm 2015 [doi.10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.008]).

To run their hospitalization analysis, Dr. Piccini and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 92,566 U.S. patients with an implanted pacemaker, ICD, or CRT device during April 2008–March 2013 collected in the MarketScan database, which includes patients covered by private insurance or Medicare. During the period studied 58,307 (63%) patients were followed by clinic visits only while the others received both clinic visits and remote monitoring.

Most of the patients, 59%, carried a pacemaker, and 29% of the patients in this device subgroup had remote monitoring. In contrast, about half of the other patients had remote monitoring, both the 30% of patients who had an ICD, as well as the 11% with a CRT device.

The rate of all-cause hospitalization during follow-up, the analysis’s primary outcome, was 18% lower in the remote-monitoring patients, a statistically significant difference. In addition, when hospitalized the average hospital length of stay ran a third lower in the remotely monitored patients, a reduction of nearly 3 days in the hospital for each hospitalized patient and a cost savings of about 30% or $3,703 per hospitalized patient. Device type did not seem to matter, Dr. Piccini reported.

The analysis dug further to focus on rates for two common causes of hospitalization in device patients, and found a statistically significant 24% reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, and a significant 22% drop in the rate of stroke hospitalization. Remote monitoring can reduce heart failure hospitalizations in many ways, by keeping tabs on heart rate, arrhythmias, overall activity level, and chest-cavity fluid level measured by changes in myocardial impedance.

 

 

The study findings highlight “a major opportunity for quality improvement,” Dr. Piccini concluded. “There is plenty of evidence to motivate physicians, health care systems, and payers” to embrace the new HRS recommendations on remote monitoring. But to be effective, each patient participating in remote monitoring must be educated about the process and be willing to take the steps necessary to make remote monitoring succeed, he added.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

References

Body

Data like those in Dr. Piccini’s report as well as the statement in May from the Heart Rhythm Society calling remote monitoring the standard of care (Heart Rhythm 2015 [doi.10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.008]) are very compelling. There has been a lag in the uptake of remote monitoring, but these new developments will make it impossible for administrators and payers to ignore remote monitoring any longer.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Jonathan M. Kalman

What we need now is an infrastructure to provide remote monitoring to the millions of patients who have implanted cardiovascular devices. Adopting remote monitoring as the standard of care involves more than just a declaration. Monitoring programs need capable technicians who can collect and evaluate the data that come in. It’s a big commitment, but something for which the benefit clearly outweighs the cost. We keep patients in better health while seeing them less often.

Dr. Jonathan M. Kalman is professor and head of the heart rhythm department of Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia. He has received research support from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. He made these comments in an interview.

Meeting/Event
Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, remote monitoring, pacemaker, ICD, CRT, Piccini, Kalman
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Related Articles
Body

Data like those in Dr. Piccini’s report as well as the statement in May from the Heart Rhythm Society calling remote monitoring the standard of care (Heart Rhythm 2015 [doi.10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.008]) are very compelling. There has been a lag in the uptake of remote monitoring, but these new developments will make it impossible for administrators and payers to ignore remote monitoring any longer.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Jonathan M. Kalman

What we need now is an infrastructure to provide remote monitoring to the millions of patients who have implanted cardiovascular devices. Adopting remote monitoring as the standard of care involves more than just a declaration. Monitoring programs need capable technicians who can collect and evaluate the data that come in. It’s a big commitment, but something for which the benefit clearly outweighs the cost. We keep patients in better health while seeing them less often.

Dr. Jonathan M. Kalman is professor and head of the heart rhythm department of Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia. He has received research support from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. He made these comments in an interview.

Body

Data like those in Dr. Piccini’s report as well as the statement in May from the Heart Rhythm Society calling remote monitoring the standard of care (Heart Rhythm 2015 [doi.10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.008]) are very compelling. There has been a lag in the uptake of remote monitoring, but these new developments will make it impossible for administrators and payers to ignore remote monitoring any longer.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Jonathan M. Kalman

What we need now is an infrastructure to provide remote monitoring to the millions of patients who have implanted cardiovascular devices. Adopting remote monitoring as the standard of care involves more than just a declaration. Monitoring programs need capable technicians who can collect and evaluate the data that come in. It’s a big commitment, but something for which the benefit clearly outweighs the cost. We keep patients in better health while seeing them less often.

Dr. Jonathan M. Kalman is professor and head of the heart rhythm department of Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia. He has received research support from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. He made these comments in an interview.

Title
New findings could boost remote monitoring
New findings could boost remote monitoring

BOSTON – Remote monitoring of implanted cardiac devices, already known to save lives, also reduced all-cause hospitalizations and cut hospitalization costs substantially in a review of more than 92,000 U.S. patients followed for 5 years.

The analysis showed that for every 100,000 patient-years of remote monitoring of implanted pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, there were 9,810 fewer all-cause hospitalizations, 119,000 fewer days spent hospitalized, and a savings of more than $370 million, compared with similar patients who did not undergo remote monitoring, Dr. Jonathan P. Piccini, Sr. said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Jonathan P. Piccini, Sr.

While these results are perhaps the first to document the impact of remote monitoring of implanted cardiac devices on health care use and cost, several previously reported study findings showed the positive impact of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes. For example, the IN-TIME (Influence of Home Monitoring on the Clinical Status of Heart Failure Patients With an Impaired Left Ventricular Function) trial randomized 664 patients with either ICDs or CRT devices to remote monitoring plus clinic visits or to monitoring by clinic visits only. After 1 year, patients on remote monitoring had a statistically significant 37% reduction in bad clinical outcomes, compared with the control patients (Lancet 2014;384:583-90). And findings from an observational study recently published by Dr. Piccini and his associates that involved 269,471 Americans with cardiac devices showed that 47% used remote monitoring, and the survival rate among users ran double that of patients with devices who did not undergo remote monitoring (J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015 [doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.033]).

Despite this evidence for a substantial clinical benefit, remote monitoring has not become routine for U.S. patients with a pacemaker, ICD, or CRT device. During the period April 2008–March 2013 studied by Dr. Piccini and his associates using a health insurance claims database representative of the U.S. adult population, of 92,566 patients with an implanted device, 34,259 (37%) underwent remote monitoring.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Michael R. Gold

“Remote monitoring has been underutilized,” commented Dr. Michael R. Gold, chief of cardiology and medical director of the Heart and Vascular Center at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. One reason that patients don’t undergo remote monitoring today is that many remote monitoring systems require a land line telephone for data collection and transmittal, while many patients now just have a mobile phone, Dr. Gold said. Mobile phone adapters are available but the patient must buy one.

Remote monitoring can dramatically reduce the need for office visits by patients, Dr. Gold said. “Without remote monitoring we see patients with devices every 3 months; with remote monitoring I usually see then once a year,” he said.

Remote monitoring may now start increasing, driven by the compelling evidence of efficacy and cost saving and also by the statement released in mid-May by the an expert consensus panel of the Heart Rhythm Society that remote monitoring ”represents the new standard of care” for patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (Heart Rhythm 2015 [doi.10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.008]).

To run their hospitalization analysis, Dr. Piccini and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 92,566 U.S. patients with an implanted pacemaker, ICD, or CRT device during April 2008–March 2013 collected in the MarketScan database, which includes patients covered by private insurance or Medicare. During the period studied 58,307 (63%) patients were followed by clinic visits only while the others received both clinic visits and remote monitoring.

Most of the patients, 59%, carried a pacemaker, and 29% of the patients in this device subgroup had remote monitoring. In contrast, about half of the other patients had remote monitoring, both the 30% of patients who had an ICD, as well as the 11% with a CRT device.

The rate of all-cause hospitalization during follow-up, the analysis’s primary outcome, was 18% lower in the remote-monitoring patients, a statistically significant difference. In addition, when hospitalized the average hospital length of stay ran a third lower in the remotely monitored patients, a reduction of nearly 3 days in the hospital for each hospitalized patient and a cost savings of about 30% or $3,703 per hospitalized patient. Device type did not seem to matter, Dr. Piccini reported.

The analysis dug further to focus on rates for two common causes of hospitalization in device patients, and found a statistically significant 24% reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, and a significant 22% drop in the rate of stroke hospitalization. Remote monitoring can reduce heart failure hospitalizations in many ways, by keeping tabs on heart rate, arrhythmias, overall activity level, and chest-cavity fluid level measured by changes in myocardial impedance.

 

 

The study findings highlight “a major opportunity for quality improvement,” Dr. Piccini concluded. “There is plenty of evidence to motivate physicians, health care systems, and payers” to embrace the new HRS recommendations on remote monitoring. But to be effective, each patient participating in remote monitoring must be educated about the process and be willing to take the steps necessary to make remote monitoring succeed, he added.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

BOSTON – Remote monitoring of implanted cardiac devices, already known to save lives, also reduced all-cause hospitalizations and cut hospitalization costs substantially in a review of more than 92,000 U.S. patients followed for 5 years.

The analysis showed that for every 100,000 patient-years of remote monitoring of implanted pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, there were 9,810 fewer all-cause hospitalizations, 119,000 fewer days spent hospitalized, and a savings of more than $370 million, compared with similar patients who did not undergo remote monitoring, Dr. Jonathan P. Piccini, Sr. said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Jonathan P. Piccini, Sr.

While these results are perhaps the first to document the impact of remote monitoring of implanted cardiac devices on health care use and cost, several previously reported study findings showed the positive impact of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes. For example, the IN-TIME (Influence of Home Monitoring on the Clinical Status of Heart Failure Patients With an Impaired Left Ventricular Function) trial randomized 664 patients with either ICDs or CRT devices to remote monitoring plus clinic visits or to monitoring by clinic visits only. After 1 year, patients on remote monitoring had a statistically significant 37% reduction in bad clinical outcomes, compared with the control patients (Lancet 2014;384:583-90). And findings from an observational study recently published by Dr. Piccini and his associates that involved 269,471 Americans with cardiac devices showed that 47% used remote monitoring, and the survival rate among users ran double that of patients with devices who did not undergo remote monitoring (J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015 [doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.033]).

Despite this evidence for a substantial clinical benefit, remote monitoring has not become routine for U.S. patients with a pacemaker, ICD, or CRT device. During the period April 2008–March 2013 studied by Dr. Piccini and his associates using a health insurance claims database representative of the U.S. adult population, of 92,566 patients with an implanted device, 34,259 (37%) underwent remote monitoring.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Michael R. Gold

“Remote monitoring has been underutilized,” commented Dr. Michael R. Gold, chief of cardiology and medical director of the Heart and Vascular Center at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. One reason that patients don’t undergo remote monitoring today is that many remote monitoring systems require a land line telephone for data collection and transmittal, while many patients now just have a mobile phone, Dr. Gold said. Mobile phone adapters are available but the patient must buy one.

Remote monitoring can dramatically reduce the need for office visits by patients, Dr. Gold said. “Without remote monitoring we see patients with devices every 3 months; with remote monitoring I usually see then once a year,” he said.

Remote monitoring may now start increasing, driven by the compelling evidence of efficacy and cost saving and also by the statement released in mid-May by the an expert consensus panel of the Heart Rhythm Society that remote monitoring ”represents the new standard of care” for patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (Heart Rhythm 2015 [doi.10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.008]).

To run their hospitalization analysis, Dr. Piccini and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 92,566 U.S. patients with an implanted pacemaker, ICD, or CRT device during April 2008–March 2013 collected in the MarketScan database, which includes patients covered by private insurance or Medicare. During the period studied 58,307 (63%) patients were followed by clinic visits only while the others received both clinic visits and remote monitoring.

Most of the patients, 59%, carried a pacemaker, and 29% of the patients in this device subgroup had remote monitoring. In contrast, about half of the other patients had remote monitoring, both the 30% of patients who had an ICD, as well as the 11% with a CRT device.

The rate of all-cause hospitalization during follow-up, the analysis’s primary outcome, was 18% lower in the remote-monitoring patients, a statistically significant difference. In addition, when hospitalized the average hospital length of stay ran a third lower in the remotely monitored patients, a reduction of nearly 3 days in the hospital for each hospitalized patient and a cost savings of about 30% or $3,703 per hospitalized patient. Device type did not seem to matter, Dr. Piccini reported.

The analysis dug further to focus on rates for two common causes of hospitalization in device patients, and found a statistically significant 24% reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, and a significant 22% drop in the rate of stroke hospitalization. Remote monitoring can reduce heart failure hospitalizations in many ways, by keeping tabs on heart rate, arrhythmias, overall activity level, and chest-cavity fluid level measured by changes in myocardial impedance.

 

 

The study findings highlight “a major opportunity for quality improvement,” Dr. Piccini concluded. “There is plenty of evidence to motivate physicians, health care systems, and payers” to embrace the new HRS recommendations on remote monitoring. But to be effective, each patient participating in remote monitoring must be educated about the process and be willing to take the steps necessary to make remote monitoring succeed, he added.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
HRS: Cardiac device remote monitoring drops hospitalizations, costs
Display Headline
HRS: Cardiac device remote monitoring drops hospitalizations, costs
Legacy Keywords
cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, remote monitoring, pacemaker, ICD, CRT, Piccini, Kalman
Legacy Keywords
cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, remote monitoring, pacemaker, ICD, CRT, Piccini, Kalman
Sections
Article Source

AT HEART RHYTHM 2015

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: Cardiac device remote monitoring cut patient hospitalizations in a large observational study.

Major finding: Cardiac device patients followed by remote monitoring had 9,810 fewer hospitalizations per 100,000 patient-years, compared with no remote monitoring.

Data source: Retrospective review of hospitalization records for 92,566 U.S. patients with a cardiac device followed during 2008-2013.

Disclosures: Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Medtronic and has received research support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Gold has been a consultant to and received research funding from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude.