MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3108810312 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.0818

Total remote pacemaker follow-up versus standard follow-up reduces global health care utilization

2020· article· en· W3108810312 on OpenAlexaff
L Ayala Valani, Mariano Badra Verdu, Charles Dussault, Jean François Roux, F. Ayala‐Paredes

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArtificial cardiac pacemakerCohortEconomic shortagePermanent pacemakerEmergency medicineInternal medicinePediatricsCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Remote pacemaker monitoring reduces in person pacemaker clinic visits, but a complete remote follow-up could be associated with an increase in total clinical encounters or even admissions, as patients (pts) have less access to a cardiologist or health care provider in a regular basis. Methods Due to a shortage in EP cardiologists between 2009 and 2012 a cohort of 296 pts implanted with a pacemaker, were offered Biotronik home monitoring only follow-up (HM f-p); gradually since 2012, pts came back to usual schedule (once or two a year in clinic follow-up). We matched the same amount of time in HM f-p to standard pacemaker follow-up (STD f-p), aiming to detect any difference in health care utilisation (clinical visits and admissions of all cause). For non de novo implants, the STD f-p period was calculated backwards until pacemaker replacement. Results One third of pts refused, were non compliant or were disconnected early (less than 6 months) to HM f-p only; 200 patients completed a median of 804 days in RM f-p only (range 88–3003 days). Mean age at implant was 74.9 years old (range 22.9–92.3, median 78 y.o.), 57.5% were male and 76% had de novo implants (15% VVI, 82% DDD and 3% CRT-P devices). The median of unscheduled pacemaker visits was 1 (range 0 to 7, 22.5% of pts never required a pacemaker clinic visit during HM f-p). The load of HM messages (number and type -i.e. administrative, clinical and clinical triggering a visit) was similar between both periods of follow-up. During HM f-p there were a median of 3 pacemaker clinic visits saved (range −3 to 16) as expected, but total number of visits were also reduced significantly from a median of 12 (range 1–115) to 8 (0–90) visits p<0.05, between STD f-p versus HM f-P (mean visits reduced from 16.96±16.4 versus 13.91±15.7). Finally, there was not an increase in total admissions between these two periods of f-up (mean of 0.8±1.3 for STD f-p versus 0.4±0.8 for HM f-p, median of 0 hospitalizations for both groups range de 0–8 versus 0–5, p=NS) Conclusion Total remote pacemaker follow-up is feasible in two thirds of patients, and when achieved, it saves in person pacemaker follow-up visits and visits of any cause, without increasing the number of admissions during the same period. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Centre de recherche du CHUS - CIUSSS de l'Estrie

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→