Benefits of Remote Monitoring & Mayo Clinic Announcement

I've been arguing for some time that remote monitoring can not only lower medical costs, but it show itself to be of benefit to the patient as well. Here's an article that not only shows that remote monitoring can be of benefit to the patient, but to the physician as well.

Remote monitoring can not only provide better and more data ... that can lead to better analysis and conclusions. It can provide that data to the physician before the patient comes in for a visit. Furthermore, if an adverse medical event occurs, that data is captured and available to the attending health care providers. Admittedly the patient would have needed to have been wearing the monitoring device at the time, but if the person was wearing the monitoring device that information would be available.

Here's the link to the article: http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/remote-patient-monitoring-steps-toward-new-era

Here are a few quotes from the article that I found interesting ...

... if you spend $100 a month to monitor patients remotely – over a year it would cost much less then what you would pay if they have to come back to the hospital.

[T]here are two waves of activity. The more traditional top down wave extends the reach of hospitals with FDA approved medical devices that are deployed out in the home by providers by doctors to keep track of these patients.

There is also an increasing consumer wave where people are going out and buying the sensors and devices on their own and tracking their fitness and health and bringing that information to their healthcare providers.

=== I find this quote interesting in light of the Apple Watch and other similar devices ======

Some physicians, Kleinberg asserted, don’t need and don’t want that data from the patient and claim that they don't have a place to put the data and they don't have time to look at it.

=== Actually, machines can monitor this data on a continual basis. The machines can alert physicians as needed and provide summaries. Physicians need not review raw data. ======

"There's a push back to this consumer-up bottom-up wave. But over time I think we're going to see that the sensors and the data that’s coming from these devices is going to have more and more value and providers are going to put more faith in it," said Kleinberg. "They're going to look at it and make some sense of it and part of the way they are going to do that is if they have more confidence about that data."

=== I think the last sentence may be one of the most significant in the article. Confidence in the data and automated analysis will build and become mainstream. And I think that cost considerations will be a factor. =====

Announcement Title: Mayo Clinic To Develop Wireless Sensors To Treat Obesity

I found this quite interesting when I came across it. The sensors are far from being developed but I thought it worth posting the announcement link.

Here's the link to the announcement: http://www.healthitoutcomes.com/doc/mayo-clinic-develop-wireless-sensors-treat-obesity-0001

Here's a quote from the announcement.

The goal is to produce the first wearable patch sensor – the size of a bandage – that is wireless, disposable, and can remotely monitor patient movements via smartphone. This new technology would simplify tracking with greater accuracy of patients and clinical trial subjects for whom a certain level of activity is prescribed to achieve their goals.

How This Blog Got Going: MRI Safe and Conditional Pacemakers, Reprise

I have decided to return to the thing that I was working on when I started this blog ... an MRI conditional pacemaker. Specifically, an MRI conditional pacemaker for St. Jude Medical. At the time I was Lead Human Engineering Clinical Systems Engineer on this project. Before I go any further I would like to distinguish between MRI conditional and MRI safe devices. It is important to distinguish between the two.

MRI Conditional v. MRI Safe

Having an MRI safe implanted cardiac device is the ideal situation. If the cardiac device is MRI safe, it means that a device patient can be "popped" into an MRI without any changes to the device. For the patient it's just like the person does not have an implanted device. The only difference is that the resulting imagery from the MRI around the device may not be as good if the person did not have an implanted device. 

An MRI conditional device presents some significant procedural challenges to all those involved. If a person has an MRI conditional device, certain conditions must be met before the device patient is allowed to enter the MRI. When I was working at St. Jude Medical, changes in the settings that operate the device are required before the patient enters the MRI. Once scanning is complete, the settings need to be changed back to their normal, operational settings.

As of publication of this article, only one medical device company has a commercially available MRI safe pacemaker, Biotronik. St. Jude Medical and Medtronic have commercially available MRI conditional devices. 

When I was work at St. Jude, the only cardiac device being engineered to permit patients to have MRI scans were pacemakers. At the time ICDs and CRTs were not considered for MRI compatibility. However, apparently, Biotronik has developed an MRI conditional ICD that is commercially available ... at least in Europe.

There are other issues regarding MRI compatibility such as whether there are limits on the area that can be scanned a cardiac device patient ... something other than a full body scan. The allowable limits on how much can be scanned are continually in flux. But this particularly issue does not have anything to with the story I want to tell.

My Experience with the MRI Conditional Project

The St. Jude Medical MRI conditional pacemaker was engineered to enable patients to undergo an MRI scan. To insure that pacemaker patients would not be harmed by the scan required that the operating settings on the pacemaker be adjusted. (To make a long story short ... a change in the setting needed to make sure that the sensing lead to heart be turned off. The pacemaker could be changed to constant pace or turned off entirely if the patient is not pacemaker dependent ... as most pacemaker patients are.)

So the major problem in this entire issue was in regards to how to change the settings on the device? Who would do it, how would it be done, what would the settings be? Essentially three basic approaches were considered:

1. Have the patient's cardiac physician or cardiac nurse go to the MRI center, lugging their device programmer with them, change the settings on the patient's device to those that are MRI compatible, wait for the scan to complete, reset the settings to normal and examine the patient to insure that the patient is OK.
2. Have the settings changed remotely. The patient is at the MRI center, the cardiac professional is in the office, at the hospital or at home. This is known as "remote programming."  At the time this was something that the FDA did not allow. Using remote programming, the patient's device communicates wireless to a pacemaker communicator located at the MRI center. The cardiac professional sees a 30 second rhythm strip before setting the patient's device to the MRI settings and sees another 30 second rhythm strip after the changes have been made. (Just like an onsite cardiac professional would do.) The patient undergoes the scan. During that time, the professional can perform other tasks. Once the scan is complete, the cardiac profession changes the pacemaker settings back to normal and sees the before and after rhythm strips. 
3. The pacemaker is programmed with two settings by the cardiac professional using the programmer. The first set of settings define the normal operation of the pacemaker. The second set are the MRI settings: that is, the settings of the pacemaker when the patient undergoes an MRI scan.  When the pacemaker patient goes to the MRI center, the MRI tech takes a wand (that's best way I can describe it.) and changes the settings from normal to MRI. Once the patient completes the MRI scan, the MRI tech uses the wand to change the patient's setting back to normal. 

I became quickly apparent that cardiac professionals had no interest in option 1. As it turned out St. Jude Medical chose the third approach. 

When the third approach was described, I had numerous objections ... mostly related to the device that would change the setting on the pacemaker. Thankfully, there have been substantial changes and upgrades made to the wand. However, I wanted to purse option 2, remote programming. And the desire to purse option 2 inspired me to start this blog ... hence the title Medical Monitoring & Remote Programming.

Wherefore Remote Programming?

Most physicians showed some hesitancy when it came to adopting remote programming. They saw it as unproven ... and they were right, it was (and so far as I know still is) unproven and still not acceptable to the FDA. However, many if not most were intrigued by the idea and thought that the technology should be pursued. Many clearly saw the potential value of the technology, the value of being able to monitor patients remotely with the potential ability to change cardiac device settings without the patient being in the office could be a revolution in patient care ... not only for people with chronic conditions like heart problems, diabetes or neurological problems that involve implanted devices, but potentially everyone. And it need not involve the need for implanted or wearable devices. We'll explore this in later postings.

Market Research Report Available: Remote & Wireless Patient Monitoring Markets

A new market research report has just been made available that discusses the market and investment potential of remote and wireless monitoring of patients.  I do not endorse this study or suggest it's purchase.  I am making it's existence known.

Here's a list of some of disorders covered by the study:

• Asthma
• COPD
• CHF
• CHD 
• Diabetes 

Here are a few quotes from the press release:

Patient monitoring systems are emerging in response to increased healthcare needs of an aging population, new wireless technologies, better video and monitoring technologies, decreasing healthcare resources, an emphasis on reducing hospital days, and proven cost-effectiveness.

Of these new high-tech patient monitoring systems, nearly all focus on some form of wireless or remote patient monitoring. ...

...  the following companies are profiled in detail in this report:

• Abbott Laboratories, Inc
• Aerotel Medical Systems
• GE Healthcare
• Honeywell HomMed LLC
• Intel Corporation
• Philips Medical Systems
• Roche Diagnostics Corporation

Here's the link to the press release and links to purchasing this study: http://www.marketresearch.com/product/display.asp?productid=2645944&g=1

 

Article: Initiation of a Telemonitoring Study of Heart Failure, COPD and Diabetes Patients

A study will be performed by researchers from Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland State University with patients suffering from heart failure, diabetes and COPD.  The objective of the study will be to determine how effective remote monitoring is with maintaining the health of these patients and with keeping them out of the hospital.

Here's a link to a report on this study: http://www.physorg.com/news190634143.html 

Additional Resources

COPD 

 The Complete Guide to Understanding and Living with COPD: From A COPDer's Perspective 

COPD For Dummies 

Diabetes

Diabetes For Dummies (For Dummies (Health & Fitness)) 

Tell Me What to Eat If I Have Diabetes: Nutrition You Can Live With 

The Official Pocket Guide to Diabetic Exchanges 

Heart Failure

The Cleveland Clinic Guide to Heart Failure (Cleveland Clinic Guides)


Manual of Heart Failure Management

Reader Article: Controlling Glucose Level to Prevent Diabetes

 Here's something I have been wishing for ... a guest article authored by one of my readers.  If you have something that you would want me to publish in this blog, by all means, please send it and if I think it has technical merit and seems appropriate, I shall publish it.  


This article is written by Kristina Ridley who writes for the diabetes blood glucose  blog. (http://www.diabetesmeters.org/)This is her personal hobby-blog that focuses on healthy eating and tips to measure blood glucose levels at home to help people understand early diabetes symptoms.  

This article may have bearing on remote monitoring technology for diabetes in the what people consume has likely impact on glucose and insulin levels.  I know that heart failure patients (whom I understand are often diabetic) can remotely report to caregivers their weight, blood pressures, etc.  I would seem reasonable that diabetics could report their food and fluids intake for remote monitoring by their caregivers. 

I am particularly interested in Kristina's last section, "Too Much Control."  My experience in cardiac rhythm management suggest close monitoring and control are strong positives.  I hope that Kristina or someone else could write a rejoinder to this section.


Here is Kristina's unedited article:

Here’s a Quick Way to Control Glucose Level to Prevent Diabetes

 

Our pancreas is affected by diabetes – specifically, Type 2.Our body contains glucose found in the blood stream, which it gets from the sugar in food. Our body uses the glucose, but only when it goes into our blood cells and the insulin released by our pancreas converts it. Insulin production and utilization is difficult for someone who lives with Type 2 diabetes. There is a lot of glucose in the body, but your cells cannot locate them.

The American Diabetes Association has become very important when it comes to gathering critical information about this medical condition. With approximately 23.6 million citizens living with diabetes, America is an extremely unhealthy country. Over 90% of all patients with diabetes have Type 2.Most diabetics tend to be overweight and have relatives with the same condition. Too much glucose can cause serious, irreparable damage to internal organs and to the overall nervous system.

Diabetes and Your Life

If you have Type 2 diabetes, you need to live in a healthy manner. Living healthy and engaging in healthy practices will affect you tremendously. Two common examples of healthy routines include exercising and consuming healthy foods. Making sure that your glucose levels stay in the recommended range translates into being able to avoid complications in your health. A finger prick test is a common and reliable way to monitor your body’s blood glucose levels. 

 

This test, according to physicians, is sufficient enough for glucose monitoring like the HbA1c test. The amount of glycated hemoglobin in your blood is determined by this HbA1c test, aside from it alerting you if you reach a high glucose level. Results of these A1c tests show that people with diabetes are at a seven percent level. The CDC reports that if one maintains their a1c levels at seven percent, they could reduce the possibility of risks as high up as forty percent.

Too Much Control 

Recently, there have been medical studies that seem to indicate that maintaining A1c levels below 7% may be a bad idea after all. One of these studies, conducted at the Lancet and Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, has found that people who have median levels may be at a far greater risk of death, especially for those taking insulin. However, other tests have indicated that A1c levels of 7 percent is still perfectly healthy. Matt Davies, An accredited Endocrinologist, has stated that maintaining a 7% A1c level is healthy according to recent studies, but that physicians should always take the individual patient's history into account prior to planning treatment.

 

Kristina provides diabetic recipes in here blog.  In addition, I have provided a link to Amazon that will initiate a search for diabetic cookbooks.

Search Amazon.com for diabetic cookbook