Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2016 UpToDate®

Cardiac implantable electronic devices: Patient follow-up

Leonard I Ganz, MD, FHRS, FACC
David L Hayes, MD
Section Editors
Samuel Lévy, MD
Bradley P Knight, MD, FACC
Deputy Editor
Brian C Downey, MD, FACC


As more people are living longer with more significant cardiac disease, permanent pacemakers (PPMs), implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices are being inserted more frequently. Beginning early in the 21st century, there has also been an expansion in the indications for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs, a term which includes PPMs, ICDs, and CRT devices, as well as other devices such as implantable loop recorders and left ventricular assist devices), and device therapy has become more commonplace.

Issues related to follow-up of patients with a CIED (PPM, ICD, or CRT devices only) will be reviewed here. The indications for PPM, ICD, and CRT use, as well as general issues related these devices, are discussed separately. (See "Permanent cardiac pacing: Overview of devices and indications" and "Secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in heart failure and cardiomyopathy" and "Primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in heart failure and cardiomyopathy" and "Cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: Indications" and "General principles of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator" and "Modes of cardiac pacing: Nomenclature and selection".)


For several decades, follow-up evaluation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) required in-person assessment, with the subsequent availability of transtelephonic monitoring for some types of permanent pacemakers (PPMs). Current technology, however, has evolved to enable comprehensive and safe remote monitoring for nearly all types of CIEDs [1]. The equipment required for remote monitoring, along with requirements (eg, internet connection) and instructions for use, should be discussed with the patient as part of the implantation process.

Office-based versus remote follow-up — For most patients, the majority of CIED follow-up assessments can be done either in person or remotely (table 1) [2-4]. Following the immediate post-implant check, an initial in-person visit should occur within weeks to three months post-implantation, and ideally one in-person visit annually for the duration of therapy with a CIED [5]. With the exception of these initial and annual in-person visits, all other CIED follow-up assessments may be done either in person or remotely (table 2), an approach consistent with the 2015 Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on the remote device interrogation and monitoring [5].

Several prospective randomized trials have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of remote CIED monitoring as well as the potential for shortening the time to clinical action [6-14]. Multiple nonrandomized observational studies have suggested improved survival for patients with remote CIED monitoring; however, this has not been universally replicated in prospective randomized trials [15-17]. In a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of nine randomized trials involving 6469 ICD recipients who were randomized to either remote monitoring (3496 patients) or in-office follow-up (2973 patients), patients assigned to remote monitoring had nonsignificant reductions in total mortality (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.58-1.17), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.41-1.09), and hospitalizations (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.63-1.10) along with significantly fewer inappropriate shocks (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.80) [18].


Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Sep 2016. | This topic last updated: Jun 17, 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2016 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Lampert R. Managing with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Circulation 2013; 128:1576.
  2. Dubner S, Auricchio A, Steinberg JS, et al. ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Europace 2012; 14:278.
  3. Wilkoff BL, Auricchio A, Brugada J, et al. HRS/EHRA expert consensus on the monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations. Heart Rhythm 2008; 5:907.
  4. Tracy CM, Epstein AE, Darbar D, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update of the 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. [corrected]. Circulation 2012; 126:1784.
  5. Slotwiner D, Varma N, Akar JG, et al. HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm 2015; 12:e69.
  6. Guédon-Moreau L, Lacroix D, Sadoul N, et al. A randomized study of remote follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: safety and efficacy report of the ECOST trial. Eur Heart J 2013; 34:605.
  7. Mabo P, Victor F, Bazin P, et al. A randomized trial of long-term remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients (the COMPAS trial). Eur Heart J 2012; 33:1105.
  8. Crossley GH, Chen J, Choucair W, et al. Clinical benefits of remote versus transtelephonic monitoring of implanted pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:2012.
  9. Crossley GH, Boyle A, Vitense H, et al. 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 2011; 57:1181.
  10. Varma N, Epstein AE, Irimpen A, et al. 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 2010; 122:325.
  11. Guédon-Moreau L, Kouakam C, Klug D, et al. Decreased delivery of inappropriate shocks achieved by remote monitoring of ICD: a substudy of the ECOST trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2014; 25:763.
  12. Hindricks G, Taborsky M, Glikson M, et al. Implant-based multiparameter telemonitoring of patients with heart failure (IN-TIME): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2014; 384:583.
  13. Al-Khatib SM, Piccini JP, Knight D, et al. Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators versus quarterly device interrogations in clinic: results from a randomized pilot clinical trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2010; 21:545.
  14. 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 2012; 125:2985.
  15. 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 2010; 122:2359.
  16. Akar JG, Bao H, Jones PW, et al. Use of Remote Monitoring Is Associated With Lower Risk of Adverse Outcomes Among Patients With Implanted Cardiac Defibrillators. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2015; 8:1173.
  17. Varma N, Piccini JP, Snell J, et al. The Relationship Between Level of Adherence to Automatic Wireless Remote Monitoring and Survival in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65:2601.
  18. Parthiban N, Esterman A, Mahajan R, et al. Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65:2591.
  19. Hindricks G, Elsner C, Piorkowski C, et al. Quarterly vs. yearly clinical follow-up of remotely monitored recipients of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the REFORM trial. Eur Heart J 2014; 35:98.
  20. Winters SL, Packer DL, Marchlinski FE, et al. Consensus statement on indications, guidelines for use, and recommendations for follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators. North American Society of Electrophysiology and Pacing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2001; 24:262.
  21. Brignole M, Occhetta E, Bongiorni MG, et al. Clinical evaluation of defibrillation testing in an unselected population of 2,120 consecutive patients undergoing first implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60:981.
  22. Healey JS, Hohnloser SH, Glikson M, et al. Cardioverter defibrillator implantation without induction of ventricular fibrillation: a single-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE). Lancet 2015; 385:785.
  23. Poole JE, Johnson GW, Hellkamp AS, et al. Prognostic importance of defibrillator shocks in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:1009.
  24. Bleakley JF, Akiyama T, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, et al. Driving and arrhythmias: implications of new data. Card Electrophysiol Rev 2003; 7:77.
  25. Task force members, Vijgen J, Botto G, et al. Consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association: updated recommendations for driving by patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Europace 2009; 11:1097.