Skip to main content

Table 5 Linear regression analysis of total follow-up

From: Fully digital data processing during cardiovascular implantable electronic device follow-up in a high-volume tertiary center

  Regression coefficient 95% confidence interval p value
Intercept 20.21 (15.31; 25.11) < 0.001
FDDP use (vs. conventional follow-up) − 0.63 (− 2.22; 0.96) 0.439
Female gender (vs. male) − 0.82 (− 2.27; 0.64) 0.273
Age (per year) 0.03 (− 0.02; 0.08) 0.261
Concomitant cardiac disease 1.41 (− 0.46; 3.27) 0.141
Physician experience in clinical EP (per year) − 1.07 (− 1.39; -0.75) < 0.001
Device type 0.009
Single chamber P (vs. CRT-P/CRT-D) − 2.77 (− 5.83; 0.28) *
Dual chamber P (vs. CRT-P/CRT-D) − 1.84 (− 4.11; 0.43) *
Single chamber ICD (vs. CRT-P/CRT-D) − 3.49 (− 5.67; − 1.32) *
Dual chamber ICD (vs. CRT-P/CRT-D) 0.06 (− 2.94; 3.06) *
Device manufacturer 0.243
Boston Scientific (vs. Medtronic) 1.59 (− 0.62; 3.81) *
Biotronik, LivaNova (Ela/Sorin), Vitatron (vs. Medtronic) 1.20 (− 1.18; 3.59) *
St. Jude Medical (vs. Medtronic) − 0.67 (− 2.48; 1.15) *
  1. Linear regression was applied to adjust for intergroup differences in indicated parameters; * a single p value is provided for parameters “device type” and “device manufacturer”
  2. Italic value indicates statistically significant associations
  3. CRT cardiac resynchronization therapy device, D defibrillator, EP electrophysiology, ICD implantable cardioverter defibrillator, P pacemaker