Automatic Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardiac Devices in Clinical Practice - The Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) Trial

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare:

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit to start a request.

For author reprints, please email
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating


The use of implantable electronic cardiac devices is increasing. Post-implantation follow-up is important for monitoring both device function and patient condition; however, clinical practice is inconsistent. For example, implantable cardioverter–defibrillator follow-up schedules vary from every three months to yearly according to facility and physician preference and the availability of resources. Importantly, no surveillance occurs between follow-up visits. By contrast, implantable devices with automatic remote monitoring capability provide a means for performing constant surveillance, with the ability to identify salient problems rapidly. The Lumos-T Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up Study (TRUST) demonstrated that remote home monitoring reduced clinic burden and allowed early detection of patient and/or system problems, enabling efficient monitoring and an opportunity to enhance patient safety. The results of the trial have significant implications for the management of patients receiving all forms of implantable electronic cardiac device.

Disclosure:Niraj Varma is Principal Investigator of the Lumos-T Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up Study (TRUST) Trial.



Support:The publication of this article was funded by Biotronik. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Biotronik.

Correspondence Details:Niraj Varma, Cardiac Electrophysiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, US. E:

Copyright Statement:

The copyright in this work belongs to Radcliffe Medical Media. Only articles clearly marked with the CC BY-NC logo are published with the Creative Commons by Attribution Licence. The CC BY-NC option was not available for Radcliffe journals before 1 January 2019. Articles marked ‘Open Access’ but not marked ‘CC BY-NC’ are made freely accessible at the time of publication but are subject to standard copyright law regarding reproduction and distribution. Permission is required for reuse of this content.

The implantation of electronic cardiac devices has increased exponentially over the last decade in response to widening indications. Subsequent monitoring is an integral part of both device and patient care, but remains unguided by any prospectively derived data. A consensus suggests that patients with implantable cardioverter– defibrillators (ICDs) should report for routine face-to-face clinic checks every three to six months, generating a huge clinical burden.1 Symptomatic events such as shock therapy prompt additional encounters including unscheduled office/emergency room (ER) visits or even hospitalisation. The volume of unscheduled encounters periodically increases, for example when a device reaches its elective replacement indicator (ERI) or in response to product advisories and recalls. A major limitation of this conventional follow-up method based on patient presentation is that no monitoring takes place between hospital visits, which is the majority of the time. Hence, important diagnostic data, such as system problems or the onset of atrial fibrillation (AF), may remain concealed indefinitely until the next device check. Remote monitoring may be a mechanism for performing intensive device surveillance without overburdening device clinics.

Remote Monitoring

The available technologies have different capabilities and modes of operation. Wand-based systems require patient-driven downloads relayed via telephone connections to hospital/clinic facilities.2,3 This time-consuming process may be cumbersome to use and challenge compliance, and remains vulnerable to overlooking asymptomatic events. Also, this technology may fail to reduce cardiac-related resource utilisation.4 By contrast, an automatic transmission mechanism fully independent of patient or physician interaction has considerable advantages. It implements the use of automatic (wireless or landline-based) data transmissions, which can be reviewed securely via the Internet (see Figures 1 and 2). This form of technology was pioneered by Biotronik (Home Monitoring [HM] and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] in 2002). The reliability and early notification ability of this communication system are excellent,5 and operation of the system is not costly in terms of energy consumption. HM, with instantaneous event transmission with no need for any patient or nurse involvement, has the ability to maintain surveillance and rapidly bring to attention significant data, enabling clinically appropriate intervention. This was tested in the Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up Study (TRUST).

Lumos-T Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up Study

TRUST has been the only prospective multicentre clinical study to assess follow-up both conventionally and with remote monitoring using HM.6,7 In this study, 1,450 patients were enrolled at 102 US sites and were randomised to conventional care (HM off) or to remote monitoring (HM on) (see Figure 3). The results demonstrated the following:

  • HM reduced healthcare utilisation by approximately 50% as measured by the total of scheduled and unscheduled (ER visits, patient- or physician-initiated checks) hospital evaluations. This resulted predominantly from the reduction in the number of scheduled encounters, the bulk of which involve collection of routine measurements only (e.g. battery status, lead impedance, sensing function) and require no clinical intervention (e.g. re-programming, alteration of antiarrhythmic medications) and which can be performed by online data review.
  • Importantly, the reduction in the number of face-to-face visits was accomplished safely, as there was no difference between the two study arms in terms of death, incidence of strokes and events requiring surgical interventions (e.g. device explants or lead revision).
  • HM permitted earlier detection and physician evaluation of cardiac and/or device problems despite fewer face-to-face encounters. For example, arrhythmia detection (combined AF, VT, and VF events) in HM patients occurred in a median period of one day compared to more than one month with conventional care.
  • HM secured greater follow-up adherence to every-three-months calendar-based checks. This was presumably because patient data can be monitored remotely any time and from anywhere, as opposed to the situation in the conventional arm, which relies on patients to present themselves physically to their physician’s office.
Patient Management

These results indicate that remote monitoring can be adopted as an instrument for device management, performing intensive surveillance and substituting for in-office follow-up, but also fulfilling the important role of a mechanism for early detection. Management of unscheduled checks may be also facilitated. For example, with patient enquiries, shock data and online electrograms are available and can be used to determine best management confidently. An appropriate shock may require reassurance only without the need for a hospital visit. By contrast, a series of inappropriate shocks may be rapidly evaluated online and the patient asked to come in to the hospital promptly.

The capacity for early detection is exceptionally valuable for detection of silent events. Potentially dangerous asymptomatic events that typically remain concealed in diagnostic memory and manifest only at formal interrogation may be revealed within hours by automatic HM and direct clinical intervention (see Figures 4 and 5).5,8,9

Several claims for HM based on the TRUST study results received FDA approval in May 2009, and the TRUST management protocol has been adopted by several large-volume centres in the US. It should be noted that the follow-up scheme described is for device management and is not intended to replace consultations with internists, cardiologists or heart failure specialists. Reimbursement guidelines were instituted in January 2009 in the US. Checks performed remotely every three months are reimbursed; between these checks, additional remote interrogations performed within the 90-day ‘global period’ are reimbursed only if the evaluation prompted an in-office evaluation and device re-programming.

Emerging Applications
Lead and Device Performance

The assessment of post-implantation system performance is an important responsibility, but is challenging in view of the increasing volume of cases, device complexity and advisory notices. Management of components under advisory notice poses several daunting challenges. Intensive monitoring by increasing office visits (e.g. monthly) is impractical, onerous and inefficient (since the incidence of any problems is very low) and is likely to fail to detect potentially catastrophic problems occurring between interrogations.10,11 Remote monitoring systems relying on patient-driven communication may have similar limitations in the detection of asymptomatic failure. By contrast, HM technology, which provides constant surveillance of system integrity with automatic alerts, eliminates the burden of patients having to monitor their own devices frequently and co-ordinate with the clinic’s services. TRUST demonstrated that conventional monitoring methods under-reported device-related problems.13 By contrast, HM enhanced the discovery of system issues (even when asymptomatic) and enabled prompt clinical decisions in terms of conservative versus surgical management. Performance problems were often asymptomatic. Figure 5 illustrates the benefit of HM in the management of recalled components.9,12

Thus, the call for intensive and comprehensive monitoring of implantable devices may be met by remote monitoring technology, as exemplified by HM.12,14 The ability to collect detailed device-specific data, with component function assessed daily and automatic archiving, sets a precedent for longitudinal evaluation of lead and generator performance.

Monitoring Disease Progression

Recipients of ICD therapy commonly have heart failure, which is a dynamic condition. Factors that may potentially cause morbidity or decompensation can be detected early with HM and treated.15 For example, AF in heart failure patients may be associated with increased morbidity and mortality.16,17 This is likely to be multifactorial, involving an increased risk of heart failure and stroke and, possibly, facilitation of ventricular arrhythmias. AF may precipitate acute heart failure decompensation by adversely affecting ventricular haemodynamics. AF may be associated with periods of rapid conduction. This is important because the beneficial effect of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) may be reduced when pacing is diminished to <92%.18 Withdrawal of ventricular pacing in CRT defibrillators (CRT-Ds) is notified by HM (see Figure 4).

Clearly, a daily patient-monitoring system generating trend analysis automatically has the ability to notify clinicians to deviations from the baseline. Action taken on the basis of these notifications may have the ability to prevent hospitalisations.15,19 In the future, incorporation of sensor technology may provide sentinel notification of conditions, leading to decompensation and prompt pre-emptive therapy. This may form the basis of stand-alone implantable cardiac monitors.20–22 Remote monitoring provides the mechanism for accessing and delivering prioritised data collected by these increasingly sophisticated implantable units.


In summary, automatic remote home monitoring fulfils the aims of post-implantation device management. TRUST presents a device-management model in which near continuous remote surveillance maintains the continuity of follow-up and combines with automatic self-declaration of problems, identifying the exceptional group of patients requiring in-clinic attention. Thus, unnecessary in-office follow-up is avoided and necessary face-to-face encounters facilitated. This reduces the clinic load for the physician, but permits earlier attention to actionable events. Patient safety and convenience are improved. Automatic data archiving provides a resource for monitoring system performance and disease progression. These characteristics have significant ramifications for implantable cardiac electronic devices in general, as well as for patient safety.


  1. Wilkoff BL, Auricchio A, Brugada J, et al., HRS/EHRA expert consensus on the monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations, Heart Rhythm, 2008;5:907–25.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Schoenfeld MH, Compton SJ, Mead RH, et al., Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a prospective analysis, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2004;27:757–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Joseph GK, Wilkoff BL, Dresing T, et al., Remote interrogation and monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators, J Interv Card Electrophysiol, 2004;11:161–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Al-Khatib SM, Piccini JP, Knight D, et al., Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators versus quarterly device interrogations in clinic: results from a randomized pilot clinical trial, J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2010;21:545–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Varma N, Stambler B, Chun S, Detection of atrial fibrillation by implanted devices with wireless data transmission capability, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2005;28(Suppl. 1):S133–S136.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Varma N, Rationale and design of a prospective study of the efficacy of a remote monitoring system used in implantable cardioverter defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-Up Study (TRUST) study, Am Heart J, 2007;154:1029–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Varma N, Epstein A, Irimpen A, et al., Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for ICD Follow-Up: the TRUST trial, Circulation, 2010;122(4):325–32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Varma N, Johnson MA, Prevalence of cancelled shock therapy and relationship to shock delivery in recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators assessed by remote monitoring, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2009; 32(Suppl. 1):S42–S46.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Varma N, Remote monitoring for advisories: automatic early detection of silent lead failure, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2009;32:525–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Medtronic, Physician Advisory Letter: Urgent Medical Device Information Sprint Fidelis® Lead Patient Management Recommendations, 2007. Available at: (last accessed 13 September 2010)
  11. Kallinen LM, Hauser RG, Lee KW, et al., Failure of impedance monitoring to prevent adverse clinical events caused by fracture of a recalled high-voltage implantable cardioverter–defibrillator lead, Heart Rhythm, 2008;5:775–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Carlson MD, Wilkoff BL, Maisel WH, et al., Recommendations from the Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on Device Performance Policies and Guidelines Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) and the International Coalition of Pacing and Electrophysiology Organizations (COPE), Heart Rhythm, 2006;3:1250–73.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Varma N, Michalski J, Epstein AE, Schweikert R. Automatic Remote Monitoring of ICD Lead and Generator Performance: The TRUST Trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010 Aug 17. [Epub].
  14. Maisel WH, Hauser RG, Hammill SC, et al., Recommendations from the Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on Lead Performance Policies and Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA), Heart Rhythm, 2009;6:869–85.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Arya A, Block M, Kautzner J, et al., Influence of Home Monitoring on the clinical status of heart failure patients: Design and rationale of the IN-TIME study, Eur J Heart Fail, 2008;10:1143–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Ehrlich JR, Hohnloser SH, Milestones in the management of atrial fibrillation, Heart Rhythm, 2009;6:S62–S67.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Bunch TJ, Day JD, Olshansky B, et al., Newly detected atrial fibrillation in patients with an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator is a strong risk marker of increased mortality, Heart Rhythm, 2009;6:2–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Koplan BA, Kaplan AJ, Weiner S, et al., Heart failure decompensation and all-cause mortality in relation to percent biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure: is a goal of 100% biventricular pacing necessary?, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009;53:355–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Varma N, Wilkoff BL, Device features for heart failure, Heart Fail Clin North Am, 2010; 7(2):xx–xx.
  20. Hoppe UC, Vanderheyden M, Sievert H, et al., Chronic monitoring of pulmonary artery pressure in patients with severe heart failure: multicentre experience of the monitoring Pulmonary Artery Pressure by Implantable device Responding to Ultrasonic Signal (PAPIRUS) II study, Heart, 2009;95:1091–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Ritzema J, Melton IC, Richards AM, et al., Direct left atrial pressure monitoring in ambulatory heart failure patients: initial experience with a new permanent implantable device, Circulation, 2007;116:2952–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Khoury DS, Naware M, Siou J, et al., Ambulatory monitoring of congestive heart failure by multiple bioelectric impedance vectors, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009;53:1075–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Varma N, Epstein A, Irimpen A, et al., Event notifications by remote monitoring systems performing automatic daily checks: load, characteristics and clinical utility, Eur Heart J, 2009;30:1909.
  24. Theuns DA, Rivero-Ayerza M, Knops P, et al., Analysis of 57,148 transmissions by remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2009;32(Suppl. 1):S63–S65.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Gunderson BD, Swerdlow CD, Wilcox JM, et al., Causes of ventricular oversensing in implantable cardioverter– defibrillators: implications for diagnosis of lead fracture, Heart Rhythm, 2010;7:626–33.
    Crossref | PubMed