Aged ; Cardiac Care Facilities ; trends ; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy ; trends ; utilization ; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices ; trends ; utilization ; Death, Sudden, Cardiac ; prevention & control ; Defibrillators, Implantable ; trends ; utilization ; Electric Countershock ; trends ; utilization ; Female ; Heart Failure ; therapy ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Retrospective Studies ; Singapore ; Stroke Volume ; Tachycardia, Ventricular ; therapy ; Tertiary Care Centers

INTRODUCTIONRemote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) has been shown to improve patient safety and reduce in-office visits. We report our experience with remote monitoring via the Medtronic CareLink(®) network.

METHODSPatients were followed up for six months with scheduled monthly remote monitoring transmissions in addition to routine in-office checks. The efficacy of remote monitoring was evaluated by recording compliance to transmissions, number of device alerts requiring intervention and time from transmission to review. Questionnaires were administered to evaluate the experiences of patients, physicians and medical technicians.

RESULTSA total of 57 patients were enrolled; 16 (28.1%) had permanent pacemakers, 34 (59.6%) had implantable cardioverter defibrillators and 7 (12.3%) had cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators. Overall, of 334 remote transmissions scheduled, 73.7% were on time, 14.5% were overdue and 11.8% were missed. 84.6% of wireless transmissions were on time, compared to 53.8% of non-wireless transmissions. Among all transmissions, 4.4% contained alerts for which physicians were informed and only 1.8% required intervention. 98.6% of remote transmissions were reviewed by the second working day. 73.2% of patients preferred remote monitoring. Physicians agreed that remote transmissions provided information equivalent to in-office checks 97.1% of the time. 77.8% of medical technicians felt that remote monitoring would help the hospital improve patient management. No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONRemote monitoring of CIED is safe and feasible. It has possible benefits to patient safety through earlier detection of arrhythmias or device malfunction, permitting earlier intervention. Wireless remote monitoring, in particular, may improve compliance to device monitoring. Patients may prefer remote monitoring due to possible improvements in quality of life.

Aged ; Arrhythmias, Cardiac ; diagnosis ; Defibrillators, Implantable ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Monitoring, Physiologic ; methods ; Pacemaker, Artificial ; Patient Safety ; Pilot Projects ; Prospective Studies ; Quality of Life ; Remote Consultation ; methods ; Singapore ; Surveys and Questionnaires

INTRODUCTION: Three doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines have been recommended for cancer patients to reduce the risk of severe disease. Anti-neoplastic treatment, such as chemotherapy, may affect long-term vaccine immunogenicity. METHOD: Patients with solid or haematological cancer were recruited from 2 hospitals between July 2021 and March 2022. Humoral response was evaluated using GenScript cPASS surrogate virus neutralisation assays. Clinical outcomes were obtained from medical records and national mandatory-reporting databases. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients were recruited, with 40 having haematological malignancies and the rest solid tumours. Among the participants, 204 (74.7%) were receiving active cancer therapy, including 98 (35.9%) undergoing systemic chemotherapy and the rest targeted therapy or immunotherapy. All patients were seronegative at baseline. Seroconversion rates after receiving 1, 2 and 3 doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination were 35.2%, 79.4% and 92.4%, respectively. After 3 doses, patients on active treatment for haematological malignancies had lower antibodies (57.3%±46.2) when compared to patients on immunotherapy (94.1%±9.56, P<0.05) and chemotherapy (92.8%±18.1, P<0.05). SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in 77 (28.2%) patients, of which 18 were severe. No patient receiving a third dose within 90 days of the second dose experienced severe infection. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates the benefit of early administration of the third dose among cancer patients.
Humans ; SARS-CoV-2 ; COVID-19/prevention & control* ; Treatment Outcome ; Neoplasms/drug therapy* ; Hematologic Neoplasms ; Vaccination ; RNA, Messenger ; Antibodies, Viral ; Immunogenicity, Vaccine