Advertisement

Impact of in-clinic follow-up visits in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: demographic and socioeconomic analysis of the TARIFF study population

  • Renato P. Ricci
  • Alfredo Vicentini
  • Antonio D’Onofrio
  • Antonio Sagone
  • Antonio Vincenti
  • Luigi Padeletti
  • Loredana Morichelli
  • Antonio Fusco
  • Filippo Vecchione
  • Francesco Lo Presti
  • Alessandra Denaro
  • Annalisa Pollastrelli
  • Massimo Santini
Article

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Telemedicine Remote monitoring Implantable cardioverter defibrillator Social costs Patient acceptance Reimbursement 

Notes

Conflict of interest

A.D. and A.P. are employees of St. Jude Medical.

References

  1. 1.
    Neuzil, P., Taborsky, M., Holy, F., & Wallbrueck, K. (2008). Early automatic remote detection of combined lead insulation defect and ICD damage. Europace, 10, 556–557.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Varma, N. (2009). Remote monitoring for advisories: automatic early detection of silent lead failure. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 32, 525–527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spencker, S., Coban, N., Koch, L., Schirdewan, A., & Muller, D. (2009). Potential role of home monitoring to reduce inappropriate shocks in implantable cardioverterdefibrillator patients due to lead failure. Europace, 11, 483–488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Varma, N., Epstein, A., Irimpen, A., Schweikert, R., Shah, J., Love, C. J., & for the TRUST Investigators. (2010). Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for ICD follow-up: the TRUST trial. Circulation, 122, 325–332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ricci, R. P., Morichelli, L., & Santini, M. (2009). Remote control of implanted devices through home monitoring technology improves detection and clinical management of atrial fibrillation. Europace, 11, 54–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 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. 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
  9. 9.
    Dubner, S., Auricchio, A., Steinberg, J. S., Vardas, P., Stone, P., et al. (2012). ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Europace, 14(2), 278–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 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
  13. 13.
    Ricci, R. P., Morichelli, L., Quarta, L., Sassi, A., Porfili, A., Laudadio, M. T., Gargaro, A., & Santini, M. (2010). Long-term patient acceptance of and satisfaction with implanted device remote monitoring. Europace, 12, 674–679.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Le Goff-Pronost, M., & Sicotte, C. (2010). The added value of thorough economic evaluation of telemedicine networks. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11, 45–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raatikainen, M. J. P., Uusimaa, P., van Ginneken, M. E. M., Janssen, J. P. G., & Linnaluoto, M. (2008). Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: a safe, time-saving, and cost-effective means for follow-up. Europace, 10, 1145–1151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burri, H., Heidbuchel, H., Jung, W., & Brugada, P. (2011). Remote monitoring: a cost or an investment? Europace, 13, ii44–ii48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ricci, R. P., D'Onofrio, A., Padeletti, L., Sagone, A., Vicentini, A., et al. (2012). Rationale and design of the health economics evaluation registry for remote follow-up: TARIFF. Europace, 14(11), 1661–1665.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mabo, P., Victor, F., Bazin, P., Ahres, S., Babuty, D., Da Costa, A., Binet, D., & Daubert, J. C. (2012). A randomized trial of long-term remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients (The COMPAS trial). European Heart Journal, 33, 1105–1011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Mascioli, G., Curnis, A., Landolina, M., Klersy, C., & Gelmini, G. P. (2011). Actions elicited during scheduled and unscheduled in-hospital follow-up of cardiac devices: results of the ATHENS multicentre registry. Europace, 13, 1766–1773.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heidbuchel, H., Lioen, P., Foulon, S., Huybrechts, W., Ector, J., Willems, R., & Ector, H. (2008). Potential role of remote monitoring for scheduled and unscheduled evaluations of patients with an implantable defibrillator. Europace, 10, 351–357.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renato P. Ricci
    • 1
  • Alfredo Vicentini
    • 2
  • Antonio D’Onofrio
    • 3
  • Antonio Sagone
    • 4
  • Antonio Vincenti
    • 5
  • Luigi Padeletti
    • 6
  • Loredana Morichelli
    • 1
  • Antonio Fusco
    • 2
  • Filippo Vecchione
    • 3
  • Francesco Lo Presti
    • 4
  • Alessandra Denaro
    • 7
  • Annalisa Pollastrelli
    • 7
  • Massimo Santini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CardiologySan Filippo Neri HospitalRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of CardiologyCasa di Cura PederzoliPeschiera del GardaItaly
  3. 3.Cardiology DivisionV. Monaldi HospitalNaplesItaly
  4. 4.Department of CardiologyL. Sacco HospitalMilanItaly
  5. 5.Electrophysiology and Cardiac Pacing UnitSan Gerardo HospitalMonzaItaly
  6. 6.Department of CardiologyAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria CareggiFlorenceItaly
  7. 7.Clinical DepartmentSt. Jude Medical Italy, Centro Dir ColleoniMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations