Infrastructural needs and expected benefits of telemonitoring in left ventricular assist device therapy: Results of a qualitative study using expert interviews and focus group discussions with patients

Background: Heart failure is one of the most expensive chronic diseases, as it leads to considerable expenses due to increasing hospitalisation rates. In addition to the implications of the demographic transition and the lack of available organs for transplantation, a major challenge in this context is that conservative treatment options are limited. This has led to the research and development of mechanical circulatory assist systems. Telemonitoring is anticipated to be an effective tool in outpatient management, which may be a key to improved outcomes of left ventricular assist devices therapy. In patients with chronic cardiac diseases, telemedicine is already used and has been shown to reduce premature mortality. This study aims to provide insights into the left ventricular assist device–specific requirements for telemonitoring and infrastructural translation from caregivers’ and patients’ points of view. Method: A qualitative investigation based on guided interview and focus group techniques was conducted at two German heart centres. The study included 15 patients and 7 caregivers (4 cardiac surgeons, 3 ventricular assist device coordinators). Qualitative content analysis was used for data analysis. The categories for analysis were (1) benefits for patients, (2) benefits for hospitals and the healthcare system, (3) acceptance and causative factors and (4) infrastructural implementation. Results: Patients and experts expect the following benefits for telemonitored patients: added safety, early detection of complications, rapid intervention in case of emergency, regular inspection of pump parameters, fewer outpatient clinic visits and the ability to provide more informed feedback and instructions to the family members who take care of the patient. However, the expected acceptance of telemonitoring in left ventricular assist device therapy differed among the interviewed groups. Alongside the aforementioned expected benefits, patients and clinical experts criticised the reduced self-determination for the patient, probable large amounts of time/effort required of the patient and caregiver and data protection/integrity issues (data misuse, device manipulation and mistransfer). Interviewees expected easy handling, proper education and safe data transmission to be necessary factors leading to acceptance. Complication rate reduction, fewer hospitalisations and cost reductions were benefits recorded for the healthcare system and clinics. Clinical experts preferred a telemonitoring centre run by ventricular assist device coordinators. Conclusion: Although positive expectations are associated with the use of telemonitoring in left ventricular assist device therapy, further action is needed. For example, software and infrastructure developers will need to address issues such as variations among patients and may need to find a balance between designing individualised solutions for compliant patients and a safe and easy-to-handle set-up. In addition, proper elucidation of users will contribute to the successful implementation of a left ventricular assist device telemonitoring programme among patients and caregivers.