You are here :

RAPID-RF Registry Overview
Remote Active Monitoring in Patients with Heart Failure

Does remotely following patients with CRTD devices impact HF management and outcomes?

Do physicians respond to managed network data?

RAPID RF: Prospective registry, 863 patients Class III IV CRTD Characterized type and frequency of alerts
• 75% patients with an alert, 24,45 patients with device alerts, 74,5% with Arrhythmia (AR) and Heart Failure (HF) alerts
• High patient compliance with weigh and BP measurement
• Most of the alerts are weight alerts (>60% patients)
• 20% AR and HF alerts prompted intervention, time to intervention~= 5 days
• 10% Device alerts prompted intervention, time to intervention~= 15 days

To study the patterns of use of a system remotely monitoring CRT devices in a heart failure population
The RAPIDRF registry provides the type and frequency of a series of alerts, time from alert and type of intervention:
• Device based alerts had a low frequency
• Heart failure and arrhythmia alerts were more frequent

There was good and sustained compliance to wt and BP monitoring of approx 3-4 times/week

• Daily remote monitoring of weights provides accurate data that leads to more frequent patient contact and medication adjustments.
• Monitoring daily weights is recommended by heart failure treatment guidelines, and remote monitoring is a tool that can provide a durable record of this data.
• Whether remote monitoring of weights improves heart failure outcomes when compared with patient self monitoring of weights will have to await the monitoring results of randomized clinical trials.
• Over 1/3 of patients did not have a weight alert during the trial.