# Remote monitoring en patiëntgerapporteerde uitkomsten bij Europese HF-patiënten met ICD

*geplaatst 2019-09-01 · Hartfalen · Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · doi 10.1093/europace/euz140 · https://hartvaat.nl/2019/09/01/remote-monitoring-en-patientgerapporteerde-uitkomsten-bij-europese-hf-patienten-/*

Studie naar het effect van remote monitoring op patiëntgerapporteerde uitkomsten bij Europese hartfalenpatiënten met een ICD.

## English: Effect of remote monitoring on patient-reported outcomes in European heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: primary results of the REMOTE-CIED randomized trial.

This European REMOTE-CIED study was the first randomized trial designed to evaluate the effect of remote patient monitoring on patient-reported outcomes in heart failure patients with ICDs, addressing the patient-centered value of telemonitoring.

## Abstract (original, from the publication)

AIMS: The European REMOTE-CIED study is the first randomized trial primarily designed to evaluate the effect of remote patient monitoring (RPM) on patient-reported outcomes in the first 2 years after implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: The sample consisted of 595 European heart failure patients implanted with an ICD compatible with the Boston Scientific LATITUDE® RPM system. Patients were randomized to RPM plus a yearly in-clinic ICD check-up vs. 3-6-month in-clinic check-ups alone. At five points during the 2-year follow-up, patients completed questionnaires including the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) to assess their heart failure-specific health status and ICD acceptance, respectively. Information on clinical status was obtained from patients' medical records. Linear regression models were used to compare scores between groups over time. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses showed no significant group differences in patients' health status and ICD acceptance (subscale) scores (all Ps > 0.05). Exploratory subgroup analyses indicated a temporary improvement in device acceptance (FPAS total score) at 6-month follow-up for secondary prophylactic in-clinic patients only (P < 0.001). No other significant subgroup differences were observed. CONCLUSION: Large clinical trials have indicated that RPM can safely and effectively replace most in-clinic check-ups of ICD patients. The REMOTE-CIED trial results show that patient-reported health status and ICD acceptance do not differ between patients on RPM and patients receiving in-clinic check-ups alone in the first 2 years after ICD implantation.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01691586.

Auteurs: Henneke Versteeg, Ivy Timmermans, Jos Widdershoven, Geert-Jan Kimman, Sébastien Prevot, Thomas Rauwolf, Marcoen F Scholten, Edgar Zitron, Philippe Mabo, Johan Denollet, Susanne S Pedersen, Mathias Meine

---
Bron: Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euz140. Bijgewerkt 2026-07-03T13:27:19Z. Citeer vrij, met bronvermelding en een link naar hartvaat.nl (de url van het record). Samenvattingen zijn redactioneel werk van HartVaat; de oorspronkelijke publicaties blijven van hun uitgevers (doi). Geen medisch advies.