Vision TeKardio 2.0 2017

der telemedizinischen Betreuung von Devicepa- tienten positiv bewertet 45 . Abbildung 2 bis Abbildung 4 visualisieren ei- nige der, in den Studien belegten Vorteile, von Telemonitoring. – 50% All-cause mortality after 12 months HM group (n = 333) Control group (n = 331) IN-TIME study: first randomised study to demonstrate that au- tomatic, implant-based remote monitoring leads to significant clinical benefit for HF patients 100% 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 0% 0 100 200 300 400 10 deaths (3.4%) 27 deaths (8.7%) p = 0.004 HM group Control group Time (days) Hazard ratio: 0.356 (95% confidence interval: 0172 – 0.735) Culmulative survival (%) Abbildung 2: Reduzierung der Mortalität durch Telemonitoring 46 45 Mueller et al. 2013 46 Hindricks et al. 2014 47 Mabo et al. 2012 48 Varna et al. 2010; Mabo et al, 2012 – 67% 18 events Control group (n = 246) Hospitali- sation due to 4 AF, 2 strokes Hospitali- sation due to 10 AF, 8 strokes COMPAS Study: Due to early detection of arrhytmias, physicans can adapt therapy at a very early stage and prevent stroke 6 events HM group (n = 248) Mabo P et al. randomised trial of long-term remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients (the COMPAS trial) Eur Hart J. 2012; 33: 1105–11 Abbildung 3: Reduzierung der Hospitalisierung durch Telemoni- toring 47 Mean number of in-office fol- low-up visit per patient per year Mean number of interim in-of- fice follow-up visit per patient per year 1) TRUST: Varna N et al. Efficacy and safety of automatic remote moni- toring for implantable cardiover- ter-defibrillator follow-up: The Lumos-T safety reduces routine office device fol- low-up (TRUST) trial. Circulation 2010; 122: 325 – 32 2) COMPAS: Mabo P et al. A randomi- sed trial of long-term remote mo- nitoring of pacemaker recipients (The COMPAS trial). Eur Heart J 2012: 1105 – 11. – 45% 3.8 2.1 Control group (n = 431) HM group (n = 908) – 56% 1.15 0.51 Control group (n = 246) HM group (n = 268) Abbildung 4: Reduzierung der Präsenzbesuche beim Arzt48 37