Influencing factors and effectiveness of community follow-up in patients with cardiac implantable electronic device
10.3760/cma.j.cn114798-20220628-00709
- VernacularTitle:植入CIED患者选择社区随访的影响因素及其效果初探
- Author:
Jiahui HUANG
1
;
Hong SHEN
;
Yunling ZHAO
;
Xiaojing YE
;
Hong FANG
;
Yue LI
;
Wei ZHAO
;
Juan SHEN
;
Hongli FAN
;
Zhaohui QIU
Author Information
1. 上海交通大学医学院附属同仁医院心血管内科，上海 200336
- Keywords:
Community health services;
Follow-up;
Cardiac implantable electronic device
- From:
Chinese Journal of General Practitioners
2023;22(2):187-193
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the influencing factors and effectiveness of community follow-up in patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.Method:A total of 132 patients who received CIED implantation in the Department of Cardiology of Tongren Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from February 2021 to February 2022 were enrolled in this prospective cohort study. Among them 33 patients were followed up in community health service centers associated with Tongren Hospital (community follow-up group) and 99 matched patients were followed up in the CIED outpatient clinic of the hospital (outpatient follow-up group) with a ratio of 1∶3. The clinical data of the selected patients were collected through a questionnaire survey; the follow-up data were extracted through the CarelinkExpress electronic follow-up platform and the CIED outpatient information system of Tongren Hospital. Adjustment of the treatment protocol or CIED parameters at follow-up, and the referral from the community health service centers were defined as visit with-an-action (VWA). The endpoint of follow-up was the occurrence of major adverse events. The multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze the factors influencing patient selection for community follow-up.Results:The univariate analysis showed that the frequency of visits to community health service centers and the service contracting rate in community follow-up group were higher than those of outpatient follow-up group ( P<0.05). The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the contracted community physician service was an independent influencing factor of patient choosing community follow-up ( OR=2.143, 95% CI: 1.103-4.166, P=0.025). A total of 469 visits of followed up occurred in 132 patients, including 45 community visits and 424 outpatient visits. VWA accounted for 22.2% (10/45) in the community follow-up group, and 17.2% (73/424) in the outpatient follow-up group ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the safety and effectiveness indicators (VWA, major adverse events, and unplanned follow-up) between the two groups ( P>0.05). More patients in the community follow-up group walked to the hospital than the outpatient follow-up group ( P<0.05);and the main transportation for the later was by bus or taxi(42(42.4%)or 41(41.4%)). The average waiting time in the community follow-up group was significantly shorter than that in outpatient follow-up group ( P<0.05). The total time required for a single follow-up in the community follow-up group was 50.0 (45.0, 59.5) minutes, which was significantly shorter than that in the routine outpatient follow-up group (107.0 (90.0, 135.0) minutes, P<0.05). Conclusions:The contracting with community physicians is an independent influencing factor for CIED implanted patients to choose community follow-up. The safety and effectiveness of community follow-up are comparable to routine outpatient follow-up, and community follow-up is more convenient.
