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?
: 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.