Impact of in-clinic follow-up visits in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: demographic and socioeconomic analysis of the TARIFF study population
- 319 Downloads
Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been demonstrated to safely reduce frequency of hospital visits. Limited studies are available evaluating the economic impact. The aim of this article is to highlight the social impact and costs for the patients associated with hospital visits for routine device follow-up at the enrollment visit for the TARIFF study (NCT01075516).
TARIFF is a prospective, cohort, observational study designed to compare the costs and impact on quality of life between clinic-based and remote care device follow-up strategies.
Two hundred nine patients (85.2 % males) were enrolled in the study; 153 patients (73.2 %) were retired, 36 (17.2 %) were active workers, 18 (8.6 %) were housewives, and 2 (1.0 %) were looking for a job. Among active workers, 63.9 % required time off from work to attend the hospital visit, while 67.0 % of all patients had to interrupt daily activities. The majority of patients spent half a day or more attending the visit. A carer accompanied 77 % of patients. Among carers, 36.6 % required time off from work, and 77.6 % had to interrupt daily activities. Median distance traveled was 36 km. The average cost of travel was 10 euros with 25 % of patients spending more than 30 euros.
Data from patients enrolled in the TARIFF registry confirm that there are social and economic impacts to patients attending routine device checks in hospital which can be significantly reduced by using a remote monitoring strategy.
KeywordsTelemedicine Remote monitoring Implantable cardioverter defibrillator Social costs Patient acceptance Reimbursement
Conflict of interest
A.D. and A.P. are employees of St. Jude Medical.
- 6.Ricci, R. P., Morichelli, L., D’Onofrio, A., Calò, L., Vaccari, D., Zanotto, G., Curnis, A., Buja, G., Rovai, N., & Gargaro, A. (2013). Effectiveness of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices in detection and treatment of clinical and device-related cardiovascular events in daily practice. The HomeGuide Registry. Europace. doi: 10.1093/europace/eus440.Google Scholar
- 7.Whellan, D. J., Ousdigian, K. T., Al-Khatib, S. M., Pu, W., Sarkar, S., Porter, C. B., Pavri, B. B., & O’Connor, C. M. (2010). Combined heart failure device diagnostics identify patients at higher risk of subsequent heart failure hospitalizations: results from PARTNERS HF (Program to Access and Review Trending Information and Evaluate Correlation to Symptoms in Patients With Heart Failure) study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 55, 1803–1810.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Ricci, R. P., Morichelli, L., Gargaro, A., Laudadio, M. T., & Santini, M. (2009). Home monitoring in patients with implantable cardiac devices: is there a potential reduction of stroke risk? Results from a computer model tested through Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 20(11), 1244–1251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Crossley, G. H., Boyle, A., Vitense, A., Chang, Y., Mead, R. H., & for the CONNECT Investigators. (2011). The CONNECT (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision) trial: the value of wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 57(10), 1182–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Landolina, M., Perego, G., Lunati, M., Curnis, A., Guenzati, G., et al. (2012). Remote monitoring reduces healthcare use and improves quality of care in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: the evolution of management strategies of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (EVOLVO) study. Circulation, 125(24), 2985–2992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Klersy, C., De Silvestri, A., Gabutti, G., Raisaro, A., Curti, M., et al. (2011). Economic impact of remote patient monitoring: an integrated economic model derived from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in heart failure. European Journal of Heart Failure, 13, 450–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Gramegna, L., Tomasi, C., Gasparini, G., Scaboro, G., Zanon, F., Boaretto, G., et al. (2012). In-hospital follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillator and pacemaker carriers: patients' inconvenience and points of view. A four-hospital Italian survey. Europace, 14, 345–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Elsner, C. H., Sommer, P., Piorkowski, C., Taborsky, M., Neuser, H., Bytesnik, J., Geller, J. C., Kottkamp, H., Wiesmeth, H., & Hindricks, G. (2006). A prospective multicenter comparison trial of home monitoring against regular follow-up in MADIT II patients: additional visits and cost impact. Computers in Cardiology, 33, 241–244.Google Scholar