Trial reportEuropean heart journal2014
Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations.
Trial report in European heart journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00336284 (TRUST), which is not on this map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
TRUST: Lumos-T Safely RedUceS RouTine Office Device Follow-up
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Knowledge Update on the Economic Evaluation of Pacemaker Telemonitoring Systems.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- 2021 ISHNE/ HRS/ EHRA/ APHRS collaborative statement on mHealth in Arrhythmia Management: Digital Medical Tools for Heart Rhythm Professionals: From the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology/Heart Rhythm Society/European Heart Rhythm Association/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2021Guideline
- Daily remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: insights from the pooled patient-level data from three randomized controlled trials (IN-TIME, ECOST, TRUST).European heart journal · 2017Pooled it
- Informational letters or postcards to initiate remote monitoring among veterans with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A randomized, controlled trial.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2024Trial
- Informational Postcards Increase Engagement with Remote Monitoring Among Veterans with Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: a Stepped-Wedge Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Safety and efficiency of a common and simplified protocol for pacemaker and defibrillator surveillance based on remote monitoring only: a long-term randomized trial (RM-ALONE).European heart journal · 2019Trial
- Telemonitoring and Quality of Life in Patients after 12 Months Following a Pacemaker Implant: the Nordland Study, a Randomised Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Trial
- INvestigation on Routine Follow-up in CONgestive HearT FAilure Patients with Remotely Monitored Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators SysTems (InContact).BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Trial
- Expert Consensus Statement: Committee on Implantable Devices and Committee on Social Issues, Japanese Heart Rhythm Society (JHRS) Statement on Remote Monitoring of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Outcomes associated with remote monitoring without in-person evaluations for patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- Advancing cardiac arrhythmia management: The integration of wearable technology and remote monitoring.World journal of cardiology · 2025Review
- Sane Approach to Optimizing the Workload in Remote Monitoring of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2025Article
- Real-time Technical Support Using a Remote Technology During Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Follow-up: A Preliminary Multicenter Experience in Clinical Practice.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2024Article
- In-Clinic and Natural Gait Observations master protocol (I-CAN-GO) to validate gait using a lumbar accelerometer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices and disease management.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- 2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
- 2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Remote Patient Monitoring: What Have We Learned and Where Are We Going?Current cardiovascular risk reports · 2023Review
- The Role of Daily Implant-Based Multiparametric Telemonitoring in Patients with a Ventricular Assist Device.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo test recommended implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up methods by 'in-person evaluations' (IPE) vs. 'remote Home Monitoring' (HM). METHODS AND
resultsICD patients were randomized 2:1 to automatic HM or to Conventional monitoring, with follow-up checks scheduled at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months post-implant. Conventional patients were evaluated with IPE only. Home Monitoring patients were assessed remotely only for 1 year between 3 and 15 month evaluations. Adherence to follow-up was measured. HM and Conventional patients were similar (age 63 years, 72% male, left ventricular ejection fraction 29%, primary prevention 73%, DDD 57%). Conventional management suffered greater patient attrition during the trial (20.1 vs. 14.2% in HM, P = 0.007). Three month follow-up occurred in 84% in both groups. There was 100% adherence (5 of 5 checks) in 47.3% Conventional vs. 59.7% HM (P < 0.001). Between 3 and 15 months, HM exhibited superior (2.2×) adherence to scheduled follow-up [incidence of failed follow up was 146 of 2421 (6.0%) in HM vs. 145 of 1098 (13.2%) in Conventional, P < 0.001] and punctuality. In HM (daily transmission success rate median 91%), transmission loss caused only 22 of 2275 (0.97%) failed HM evaluations between 3 and 15 months; others resulted from clinic oversight. Overall IPE failure rate in Conventional [193 of 1841 (10.5%) exceeded that in HM [97 of 1484 (6.5%), P < 0.001] by 62%, i.e. HM patients remained more loyal to IPE when this was mandated.
conclusionAutomatic remote monitoring better preserves patient retention and adherence to scheduled follow-up compared with IPE. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT00336284.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.