Efficiency potential in the pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillator outpatient clinic]

The aim of the present study was to elucidate whether the duration of a technical follow-up (FU) of a pacemaker (PM)/implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has an impact on cost-effectiveness in the outpatient clinic. We determined the time required for a complete FU of devices from three different manufacturers. In 130 patients (70 VVI/DDD-PM, 60 VVI/DDD-ICD) with either a PM (Phylos, Chorum/Talent, Kappa, EnPulse) or an ICD (Belos, Alto or GEM) the time was recorded for a complete FU including determination of lead impedance, sensing and pacing threshold. The time for activation of individual menue buttons was excluded. On the basis of time required for FU, cost-units (CU) were calculated for 2000 FU/year and for a presumed device longevity (PM 7 years, ICD 5 years). For VVI-PM, the duration of FU was almost identical for devices from different manufacturers (105+/-11 s to 125+/-8 s; p=n.s.). However, analysis of DDD-PM revealed marked differences (140+/-25 s vs 282+/-23 s, p<0.05). Time for FU of ICDs varied between 108+/-5 s and 207+/-21 s (p<0.05) in VVI-ICDs and between 129+/-8 ms and 225+/-23 s (p<0.05) in DDD-ICDs. The total savings could be 55 000 CU in VVI- and 53 333 CU in DDD-ICDs. For full automatic DDD-pacemakers (EnPulse) time for FU could be reduced to 58+/-3 s (p<0.05). Differences in FU times were caused by problems with telemetry, delay during booting of the programmer, interrogation at the beginning and at the end of FU and for sensing tests. Improving not only programmers and devices but also test automaticity could significantly increase cost-efficiency in the outpatient clinic.