Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
Patient experience with remote versus in-office monitoring for implantable cardioverter defibrillators: the PORTLink study (PORTuguese Research on Telemonitoring with CareLink®)
Session:
Posters 2 - Écran 04 - Arritmologia - Dispositivos
Speaker:
Milene Fernandes
Congress:
CPC 2018
Topic:
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
Theme:
09. Device Therapy
Subtheme:
09.4 Home and Remote Patient Monitoring
Session Type:
Posters
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Milene Fernandes; Paulo Nicola; Joao Pirmo; António Hipólito Reis; Victor Manuel Sanfins; Monica Silva; Mário Martins Oliveira
Abstract
<p>Remote monitoring (RM) is a safe and effective alternative to conventional follow-up (CFU). However, evidence on the patient perspective on RM is scarce. The PORTLink study aims included the evaluation of patient experience with RM in a Portuguese population with cardiac devices. <strong>Methods:</strong> Multicenter, randomized interventional study. Adult patients (pts) with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy with ICD, eligible for RM with the CareLink system, were allocated to: Group A (n=35), newly implanted, starting RM; Group B (n=37), newly implanted, starting CFU; Group C (n=34), with experience of CFU, changing to RM; Group D (n=28), with experience of CFU and maintaining it according to the usual practice of the center. RM and CFU were compared regarding the number of in-office visits during a 12-month period and resources consumed per in-office visit, from the patient standpoint. In the RM groups, patient preference, satisfaction and easiness regarding monitoring protocol were also evaluated. <strong>Results:</strong> A total of 134 pts (80% male; 60±13 years; 23% employed; left ventricular ejection fraction 30±11%; NYHA class ≥2 - 75%; ICD - 72%) were included. Most (70%) reported up to 15€ of travel costs to the hospital, and 46% that the in-office visit disturbs daily routine. When asked about the satisfaction with hospital service characteristics, accessibility (e.g., travelling, infrastructure accessibility) was the less appreciated, with 27% reporting neither satisfied or dissatisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Mean travel time to the center was 49min (range:10-240min). Mean time spent per in-office visit was 15.6±6.2min (physician) plus 16.0±6.0min (technician). CFU groups had more in-office visits (total: 74 vs. 29 in RM; unscheduled: 70 vs. 26 in RM), corresponding to 1.1±0.9 vs. 0.4±0.6 visits per patient (p<0.001). No clinical measures were required in 81% of the in-office visits. For 64% pts, RM had no impact on emotional state and 36% reported a positive impact; 44% reported that the RM experience was better than they expected and 56% that it was as expected. At the end of follow-up, 99% RM pts were satisfied or highly satisfied with the follow-up protocol, all considered RM easy or very easy to use, all would recommend it to others, and all would like to continue with RM protocol. <strong>Conclusions:</strong> On a patient perspective, RM reduces the consumption of resources and time required for in-office visits. Pts found RM easy to implement, were highly satisfied with RM protocol, and prefer it as follow-up methodology.</p> <p> </p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site