Organizational model and reactions to alerts in remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: A survey from the Home Monitoring Expert Alliance project

Background: This survey aimed to describe the organizational workflow of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) remote monitoring (RM) service in ordinary practice. Methods: A questionnaire was designed for our purpose and completed by 49 sites participating to the Italian Home Monitoring Expert Alliance. Results: A dedicated organizational model for RM was set up for 86% of centers. The median RM team consisted of 2 (Interquartile range [IQR]: 1-3) physicians and 1 (IQR: 0-2) nurse. RM service was available in working hours and the median percentage of patients included was 100% (IQR: 10%-100%) for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients and 5% (IQR:0%-30%) for pacemakers. In-office follow-up was performed every 12 and 6 months for pacemaker and ICD/CRT recipients, respectively. More than 90% of sites used to activate all technical alerts, with a prompt reaction in case of an out-of-range parameter. The threshold for atrial fibrillation (AF) daily burden notification in most cases ranged from 2.4 to 7.2 hours. All ventricular arrhythmias alerts were usually switched on: an inappropriate therapy or more than one appropriate episode triggered an urgent in-hospital visit. Concerning heart failure, low CRT percentage pacing alert was always used, while the other available notifications were less frequently switched on. Conclusions: This survey showed that RM service was usually set up with a primary nursing model including on average two responsible physicians and one nurse and mainly offered to ICD/CRT patients. Technical, AF and ventricular arrhythmia alerts triggered prompt reactions, while heart failure related indexes were generally less applied.