Skip to main content
Log in

Current State of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Remote Monitoring in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease: A PACES-Sponsored Quality Improvement Initiative

  • Research
  • Published:
Pediatric Cardiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) remote transmissions are an integral part of longitudinal follow-up in pediatric and adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients. To evaluate baseline CIED remote monitoring (RM) data among pediatric and ACHD centers prior to implementation of a Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology  Society (PACES)-sponsored quality improvement (QI) project. This is a cross-sectional study of baseline CIED RM. Centers self-reported baseline data: individual center RM compliance was defined as high if there was > 80% achievement and low if < 50%. A total of 22 pediatric centers in the USA and Australia submitted baseline data. Non-physicians were responsible for management of the RM program in most centers: registered nurse (36%), advanced practice provider (27%), combination (23%), and third party (9%). Fifteen centers (68%) reported that > 80% of their CIED patients are enrolled in RM and only two centers reported < 50% participation. 36% reported high compliance of device transmission within 14 days of implant and 77% of centers reported high compliance of CIED patients enrolled in RM. The number of centers achieving high compliance differed by device type: 36% for pacemakers, 50% for ICDs, and 55% for Implantable Cardiac Monitors (ICM). All centers reported at least 50% adherence to recommended follow-up for PM and ICD, with 23% low compliance rate for ICMs. Based on this cross-sectional survey of pediatric and ACHD centers, compliance with CIED RM is sub-optimal. The PACES-sponsored QI initiative will provide resources and support to participating centers and repeat data will be evaluated after PDSA cycles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Silvetti MS, Drago F, Di Carlo D, Placidi S, Brancaccio G, Carotti A (2013) Cardiac pacing in paediatric patients with congenital heart defects: transvenous or epicardial? Europace 15:1280–1286. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eut029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stanner C, Horndasch M, Vitanova K, Strbad M, Ono M, Hessling G, Lange R, Cleuziou J (2019) Neonates and infants requiring life-long cardiac pacing: how reliable are epicardial leads through childhood? Int J Cardiol 297:43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.10.008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lau KC, William Gaynor J, Fuller SM, Karen AS, Shah MJ (2015) Long-term atrial and ventricular epicardial pacemaker lead survival after cardiac operations in pediatric patients with congenital heart disease. Heart Rhythm 12:566–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.12.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ceresnak SR, Perera JL, Motonaga KS, Avasarala K, Malloy-Walton L, Hanisch D, Punn R, Maeda K, Reddy VM, Doan LN et al (2015) Ventricular lead redundancy to prevent cardiovascular events and sudden death from lead fracture in pacemaker-dependent children. Heart Rhythm 12:111–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.09.056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Malloy LE, Gingerich J, Olson MD, Atkins DL (2014) Remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable devices in the pediatric population improves detection of adverse events. Pediatr Cardiol 35:301–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-013-0774-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shah MJ, Silka MJ, Silva JNA, Balaji S, Beach CM, Benjamin MN, Berul CI, Cannon B, Cecchin F, Cohen MI et al (2021) 2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients: developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC) Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). JACC Clin Electrophysiol 7:1437–1472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2021.07.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ferrick AM, Raj SR, Deneke T, Kojodjojo P, Lopez-Cabanillas N, Abe H, Boveda S, Chew DS, Choi JI, Dagres N et al (2023) HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on practical management of the remote device clinic. Heart Rhythm. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.03.1525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Clark BC, Dalal A, Mah DY, Tanel RE, Deering TF, Smith AM, Catanzaro JN (2022) EP news: quality improvement and outcomes: remote monitoring of pediatric cardiac implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm 19:1576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Griffeth EM, Krishnan P, Dearani JA, Pahwa S, Ackerman MJ, Wackel PL, Todd A, Cannon BC (2023) Pediatric epicardial devices: early and midterm outcomes. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. https://doi.org/10.1177/21501351231157374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dechert BE, Serwer GA, Bradley DJ, Dick M 2nd, LaPage MJ (2015) Cardiac implantable electronic device remote monitoring surveillance in pediatric and congenital heart disease: utility relative to frequency. Heart Rhythm 12:117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.10.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dechert BE, Bradley DJ, Serwer GA, Dick M 2nd, LaPage MJ (2019) Frequency of CIED remote monitoring: a quality improvement follow-up study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 42:959–962. https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.13707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hillmann HAK, Hansen C, Przibille O, Duncker D (2023) The patient perspective on remote monitoring of implantable cardiac devices. Front Cardiovasc Med 10:1123848. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1123848

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Contributions

This survey is based on a QI project that was created by BC and AD with the support and guidance of RT and DM. All authors participated in the creation of resources for the QI project and submitted baseline data for this project. All authors participated in review of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bradley C. Clark.

Ethics declarations

Competing interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clark, B.C., Olen, M., Dechert, B. et al. Current State of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Remote Monitoring in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease: A PACES-Sponsored Quality Improvement Initiative. Pediatr Cardiol 45, 114–120 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-023-03348-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-023-03348-x

Keywords

Navigation