Patient satisfaction, safety, and efficacy of nurse-led compared to physician-led implantation of cardiac monitors

Abstract

Abstract Aims Implantation of an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) is a simple procedure, but adds significant and increasing workload to the arrhythmia service. In 2020, we established a nurse-led ICM implantation service. We aimed to analyse patient satisfaction, adverse events during implant, and ICM re-interventions with nurse-led ICM implantation (N-Implant) compared to physician-led ICM implantation (P-Implant). Methods and results From January 2020 to December 2021, we included all consecutive patients implanted with an ICM in a prospective registry. We collected data on patient characteristics, implant procedure, and follow-up. Patients were interviewed by phone four weeks after ICM implantation. Of 321 patients implanted with an ICM (median age 67 years; 33% women), 189 (59%) were N-Implants. More N-Implants were performed in the outpatient clinic compared to P-Implants (95% vs. 8%; P < 0.001). Two N-Implant patients experienced vaso-vagal reaction during implantation (1%), whereas no adverse events occurred during P-Implant (P = 0.51). A total of 297 patients (93%) completed the questionnaire. Duration of pain was shorter and wound closure after 2 weeks better following N-Implant (P = 0.019 and P = 0.018). A minor bruise or swelling at the implant site was reported more frequently after N-Implant (P = 0.003 and P = 0.041). Patient satisfaction was excellent with both N-Implant and P-Implant (99% and 97%; P = 0.16). After a median follow-up of 242 days (range 7–725 days), five ICMs (2%) were explanted prematurely, without differences among groups. Reasons for premature explants were local discomfort (n = 2), infection, MRI, and ICM malfunction. Conclusion Nurse-led ICM implantation has excellent patient satisfaction without compromising safety. N-Implant both expands nursing competencies and reduces physician workload.