Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices using smart device interface versus radiofrequency‐based interface: A systematic review

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundGuidelines recommended remote monitoring (RM) in managing patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices. In recent years, smart device (phone or tablet) monitoring‐based RM (SM‐RM) was introduced. This study aims to systematically review SM‐RM versus bedside monitor RM (BM‐RM) using radiofrequency in terms of compliance, connectivity, and episode transmission time.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review, searching three international databases from inception until July 2023 for studies comparing SM‐RM (intervention group) versus BM‐RM (control group).ResultsTwo matched studies (21 978 patients) were retrieved (SM‐RM arm: 9642 patients, BM‐RM arm: 12 336 patients). There is significantly higher compliance among SM‐RM patients compared with BM‐RM patients in both pacemaker and defibrillator patients. Manyam et al. found that more SM‐RM patients than BM‐RM patients transmitted at least once (98.1% vs. 94.3%, p < .001), and Tarakji et al. showed that SM‐RM patients have higher success rates of scheduled transmissions than traditional BM‐RM methods (SM‐RM: 94.6%, pacemaker manual: 56.3%, pacemaker wireless: 77.0%, defibrillator wireless: 87.1%). There were higher enrolment rates, completed scheduled and patient‐initiated transmissions, shorter episode transmission time, and higher connectivity among SM‐RM patients compared to BM‐RM patients. Younger patients (aged <75) had more patient‐initiated transmissions, and a higher proportion had ≥10 transmissions compared with older patients (aged ≥75) in both SM‐RM and BM‐RM groups.ConclusionSM‐RM is a step in the right direction, with good compliance, connectivity, and shorter episode transmission time, empowering patients to be in control of their health. Further research on cost‐effectiveness and long‐term clinical outcomes can be carried out.