title: Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Monitoring implantable cardiac device function and patient condition is important. The Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-Up (TRUST) trial tested the hypothesis that remote home monitoring with automatic daily surveillance (HM) is safe and effective for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up for 1 year and enables rapid physician evaluation of significant events.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In total, 1339 patients were randomized 2:1 to HM or conventional follow-up. Follow-up checks occurred at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months after implantation. HM was used before office visits at 3 and 15 months in the HM group. At 6, 9, and 12 months, HM only was used but was followed by office visits if necessary. Conventional patients were evaluated with office visits only. Scheduled office visits and unscheduled evaluations, incidence of morbidity, and time elapsed from first event occurrence in each patient to physician evaluation were tracked for each group. HM and conventional patients were similar (age, 63.3+/-12.8 versus 64.0+/-12.1 years; gender, 72.0% versus 73.1% male; New York Heart Association class II, 55.9% versus 60.4%; pathology: left ventricular ejection fraction, 29.0+/-10.7% versus 28.5+/-9.8%; coronary artery disease, 64.8% versus 71.7%; primary prevention indication, 72.2% versus 73.8%; and dual-chamber implants, 57.8% versus 56.6%). HM reduced total in-hospital device evaluations by 45% without affecting morbidity. In the HM group, 85.8% of all 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups were performed remotely only, indicating that HM provided sufficient assessment in the majority. Median time to evaluation was <2 days in the HM group compared with 36 days in the conventional group (P<0.001) for all arrhythmic events.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  HM is safe and allows more rapid detection of actionable events compared with conventional monitoring in patients with implantable electronic cardiac devices.
authors.affiliation: Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. varman@ccf.org
authors.forename: Niraj
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Varma
authors.forename: Andrew E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Epstein
authors.forename: Anand
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Irimpen
authors.forename: Robert
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Schweikert
authors.forename: Charles
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Love
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D017209:Apoptosis; D001331:Automation; D003327:Coronary Disease / Q000150:complications / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy; D017147:Defibrillators, Implantable / Q000592:standards*; D004721:Endoplasmic Reticulum / Q000473:pathology; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006333:Heart Failure / Q000150:complications / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012449:Safety; D012891:Sleep Apnea Syndromes / Q000150:complications; D013318:Stroke Volume / Q000502:physiology