Patient using mycarelink

Improved Outcomes

Managing your patients at home and away

STAYING CONNECTED IMPROVES OUTCOMES

In the United States, there are over 3 million patients with implanted cardiac devices.
It's estimated that in 2019, there will be almost a half-million cardiac device procedures performed.2 Remote monitoring has been proven to be a safe and clinically effective way to manage these cardiac device patients.3 Not only does remote monitoring help ensure quality care, it helps you efficiently manage your resources.4-6

With remote monitoring, early intervention may deliver powerful results for cardiac device patients and your bottom line.


The Standard of Care

Compared to in-office follow-up, remote monitoring means:

OPTIMAL CARE

  • Improves patient compliance to follow-up 7
  • Detects clinically actionable events faster 4,8

REDUCED HEALTHCARE UTILIZATION

  • Reduces hospitalizations and ER visits (ICD/CRT-D) 9,10
  • Reduces hospital length of stay by 18% (ICD/CRT-D) 4
  • Reduces time spent on follow-up by 58% 11

INCREASED SURVIVAL

  • Increases survival rates by over 50% 12-14

PATIENT SATISFACTION

  • Increases Quality of Life 15
  • Provides a sense of security and peace of mind 16-18

Clinician Testimonial

A cardiac device nurse talks about remote monitoring

Listen to this device nurse in central Minnesota talk about the benefits of using remote monitoring to care for her patients.

"Remote monitoring changed our lives. It provides balance between our work life and home life, meaning no staff turnover; it allows us to better manage our clinic; and it provides valuable device information to our physicians in a timely manner, so we're taking better care of our patients. Remote monitoring is just how we get our business done."*

Laura Van Heel
Heart Device Nurse
CentraCare Health System


*

This is one clinician's experience. Results may vary.


1

Buch E, Boyle NG, Belott PH. Pacemaker and defibrillator lead extraction. Circulation. March 22, 2011;123(11):e378-e380.

2

MedTech Insight/US Markets for Cardiac Rhythm Management. February 2015.

3

Roka A, Schoenfeld MH. Remote Monitoring of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices. Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management. July 2011;381-393.

4

Crossley GH, Boyle A, Vitense H, Chang Y, Mead RH, and the CONNECT Investigators. The CONNECT (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision) trial; the value of wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts. J AM Coll Cardiol. March 8, 2011;57(10):1181-1189.

5

Wilkoff BL. Pacemakers remote follow-up evaluation and review: results of the PREFER trial. Late-breaking clinical trial session. Presented at HRS May 15, 2008.

6

Cronin EM, Ching EA, Varma N, et al. Remote monitoring of cardiovascular devices: a time and activity analysis. Heart Rhythm. December 2012;9(12):1947-1951. 

7

TRUST Investigators. Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) trial. Circulation. July 27, 2010;122(4):325-332.

8

Chen J, Wilkoff BL, Choucair W, et al. Design of the Pacemaker REmote Follow-up Evaluation and Review (PREFER) trial to assess the clinical value of the remote pacemaker interrogation in the management of pacemaker patients. http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/18. April 3, 2008.

9

Small R, Tang W, Wickemeyer W, et al. Managing Heart Failure Patients with Intra-Thoracic Impedance Monitoring: A Multi-Center US Evaluation (OFISSER). J Card Fail.August 2007;13(6); Supp 2;S113-S114.

10

Landolina M, Perego GB, Lunati M, et al. Remote monitoring reduces healthcare use and improves quality of care in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: the evolution of management strategies of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (EVOLVO) study. Circulation. June 19, 2012;125(24):2985-2992.

11

Cronin EM, Ching EA, Varma N, Martin DO, Wilkoff BL, Lindsay BD. Remote monitoring of cardiovascular devices: a time and activity analysis. Heart Rhythm. December 2012;9(12):1947-1951.

12

Saxon LA, Hayes DL, Gilliam FR, et al. Long-Term Outcome after ICD and CRT Implantation and Influence of Remote Device Follow-Up: The ALTITUDE Survival Study. Circulation. December 7, 2010;122(23):2359-2367.

13

Mittal S, Piccini JP, Fischer A, et al. Increased Adherence to Remote Monitoring is Associated with Reduced Mortality in Both Pacemaker and Defibrillator Patients. Presented at HRS 2014. LB01-05.

14

Akar JG, Bao H, Jones P, et al. Use of Remote Monitoring is Associated with Improved Outcomes of Patients with Implanted Cardiac Defibrillators Patient RElated Determinants of ICD Remote Monitoring (PREDICt RM) study. Presented at HRS 2014. LB03-03.

15

Landolina M, Perego GB, Lunati M, et al. Remote monitoring reduces healthcare use and improves quality of care in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: the evolution of management strategies of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (EVOLVO) study. Circulation. June 19, 2012;125(24):2985-2992.

16

Marzegalli M, Lunati M, Landolina M, Remote Monitoring of CRT-ICD: The Multicenter Italian CareLink Evaluation – Ease of Use, Acceptance, and Organizational Implications. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. October 2008;31(10):1259-1264.

17

Petersen HH, Larsen MC, Nielsen OW, Kensing F, Svendsen JH. Patient satisfaction and suggestions for improvement of remote ICD monitoring.J Interv Card Electrophysiol. September 2012; 34(3):317-324.

18

Ricci RP, Vicentini A, D’Onofrio A, et al. Impact of in-clinic follow-up visits in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: demographic and socioeconomic analysis of the TARIFF study population. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. November 2013;38(2):101-106.