Rationale and design of the MONITOR-ICD study: a randomized comparison of economic and clinical effects of automatic remote MONITORing versus control in patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.

Background and aims Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) remote follow-up and ICD remote monitoring (RM) are established means of ICD follow-up. The reduction of the number of in-office visits and the time to decision is proven, but the true clinical benefit is still unknown. Cost and cost-effectiveness of RM remain leading issues for its dissemination. The MONITOR-ICD study has been designed to assess costs, cost-effectiveness, and clinical benefits of RM versus standard-care follow-up in a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. Methods and results Patients indicated for single- or dual-chamber ICD are eligible for the study and are implanted an RM-capable Biotronik ICD (Lumax VR-T or Lumax DR-T; Biotronik SE & Co KG, Berlin, Germany). Implantable cardioverter defibrillator programming and alert-based clinical responses in the RM group are highly standardized by protocol. As of December 2011, recruitment has been completed, and 416 patients have been enrolled. Subjects are followed-up for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 24 months, ending in January 2013. Disease-specific costs from a societal perspective have been defined as primary end point and will be compared between RM and standard-care groups. Secondary end points include ICD shocks (including appropriate and inappropriate shocks), cardiovascular hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality, and additional health economic end points. Conclusions The MONITOR-ICD study will be an important randomized RM study to report data on a primary economic end point in 2014. Its results on ICD shocks will add to the currently available evidence on clinical benefit of RM.