Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Remote monitoring of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Perception of the impact of monitoring and selected determinants of quality of life
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Remote monitoring of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Perception of the impact of monitoring and selected determinants of quality of life
Do you wish to request the book?
Remote monitoring of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Perception of the impact of monitoring and selected determinants of quality of life
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Remote monitoring of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Perception of the impact of monitoring and selected determinants of quality of life
2018
Overview
The number of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) has been continuously rising. Telemonitoring care (Home Monitoring™ – HM) has been increasingly used during the monitoring of these patients.
150 patients with ICDs who were monitored using the HM system (HM+), and 150 patients with ICDs who were monitored using standard outpatient check-ups (HM−) were included. A questionnaire, which focused on the quality of life (QoL) (EQ5D-3L), level of anxiety and depression (HADS), and a custom questionnaire examining the subjective approach of patients to the HM system and telecare workflow, was sent out to all patients.
The method of ICD monitoring did not directly influence the QoL (p=NS). A non-significant trend towards better QoL in HM+ compared to HM− patients was recorded. It was based on total QoL scores (68.6±19 vs. 64.6±16.5, p=0.09). Regarding anxiety and depression, statistical testing also failed to find any difference between HM+ and HM− patients. The most striking difference between HM+ and HM− patients was recorded in the preference for the type of monitoring. 54.9% of HM− patients were interested in remote monitoring, 45.1% said they preferred outpatient check-ups, and only 6.7% (p<0.0001) of HM+ patients were interested in switching to outpatient check-ups from remote monitoring. HM+ patients were more inclined to use remote ICD monitoring (p=0.007) and had a positive approach towards the telecare system (p=0.034).
The method of device monitoring does not significantly affect QoL in patients with ICDs, nor does it affect levels of anxiety and depression. Generally, patients with ICDs monitored using the HM system were very satisfied with telecare and would prefer not to lose remote ICD monitoring.
Publisher
Elsevier Sp. z o.o
