Background: Remote patientmonitoring is a safe and effective alternative for the in-clinic follow-up of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, evidence on the patient perspective on remote monitoring is scarce and inconsistent.Objectives: The primary objective of the REMOTE-CIED study is to evaluate the influence of remote patient monitoring versus in-clinic follow-up on patient-reported outcomes. Secondary objectives are to: 1) identify subgroups of patients who may not be satisfied with remote monitoring; and 2) investigate the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring.Methods: The REMOTE-CIED study is an international randomised controlled study that will include 900 consecutive heart failure patients implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compatible with the Boston Scientific LATITUDE® Remote Patient Management system at participating centres in five European countries. Patients will be randomised to remote monitoring or in-clinic followup. The In-Clinic group will visit the outpatient clinic every 3– 6 months, according to standard practice. The Remote Monitoring group only visits the outpatient clinic at 12 and 24 months post-implantation, other check-ups are performed remotely. Patients are asked to complete questionnaires at five time points during the 2-year follow-up.Conclusion: The REMOTE-CIED study will provide insight into the patient perspective on remote monitoring in ICD patients, which could help to support patient-centred care in the future.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, Cost-effectiveness, Patient-reported outcomes, Remote monitoring, REMOTE-CIED
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12471-014-0587-z, hdl.handle.net/1765/84608
Netherlands Heart Journal
Department of Cardiology

Versteeg, H, Pedersen, S.S, Mastenbroek, T.J, Redekop, W.K, Schwab, J.O, Mabo, P, & Meine, M. (2014). Patient perspective on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: Rationale and design of the REMOTE-CIED study. Netherlands Heart Journal, 22(10), 423–428. doi:10.1007/s12471-014-0587-z