INTRODUCTION: Due to the increasing number of @entity1 with an @entity737 ( @entity737 ), new options for @entity737 @entity1 follow-up management are required. METHODS: @entity1 with @entity737 indication according to the guidelines received an @entity737 with Home Monitoring technology. The devices enabled the transmission of the relevant episode, therapy, and system integrity data. @entity1 were followed for 12 months with routine controls every 3 months. The physician analyzed the Home Monitoring data before the routine @entity12652 ( @entity12652 ) and gave a forecast on the necessity of the pending @entity12652 , which was compared with the evaluation after the @entity12652 . Based on the derived forecast reliability, a @entity1 management scheme was developed and its impact on @entity1 safety was assessed retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 271 @entity1 were enrolled (40 f, mean age 62+/-12 years, mean LVEF 39+/-15%, 65% @entity741 , 20% @entity296 ) and followed for 339+/-109 days. Of 908 pairs of Home Monitoring data and @entity12652 data evaluation, 129 there were false negative results for 92 @entity1 . Safety concerns from false negative forecasts can be minimized with a @entity1 management scheme containing the following elements: 1) never skip the first routine @entity12652 ; 2) never skip a routine @entity12652 for a @entity1 having already shown pacing threshold problems; 3) perform @entity12652 following hospitalizations; 4) perform @entity12652 following episode detection by the @entity737 ; and 5) perform a routine @entity12652 if the @entity1 reports symptoms. The retrospective analysis showed, that if the @entity1 had been managed using this scheme, 503 of 1079 routine @entity12652 could have been skipped with only one safety concern, a three month delay in the detection of silent paroxysmal @entity955 in one @entity1 . CONCLUSIONS: Home Monitoring in @entity737 therapy over 12 months is feasible. The data transmitted relevantly contribute to a remarkable reduction of follow-up burden and enable the individualization of routine follow-up.

What evidence do we have to replace in-hospital XXXX follow-up?

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Patients', 'patients', 'patient'] @entity296 :: ('MESH:D009202', 'Disease') :: ['cardiomyopathy'] @entity12652 :: ('MESH:C537491', 'Disease') :: ['FU', 'follow-up visit'] @entity737 :: ('MESH:D057873', 'Disease') :: ['ICD', 'implantable cardioverter defibrillator'] @entity741 :: ('MESH:D017202', 'Disease') :: ['ischemic heart disease'] @entity955 :: ('MESH:D001281', 'Disease') :: ['atrial fibrillation']
@entity737 :: (MESH:D057873,Disease) :: ['implantable cardioverter defibrillator']
