Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25113751›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2014

Trials of implantable monitoring devices in heart failure: which design is optimal?

William T Abraham, Wendy G Stough, Ileana L Piña, Cecilia Linde, Jeffrey S Borer, Gaetano M De Ferrari, Roxana Mehran, Kenneth M Stein, Alphons Vincent, Jay S Yadav and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Implantable devices for heart failure monitoring: the CardioMEMS™ system.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2019
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Novel Endpoints for Heart Failure Clinical Trials.Current heart failure reports · 2017
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 11 institutions in 9 countries.

William T AbrahamDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Ohio State University, 244 Davis Heart &Lung Research Institute, 473 West 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Wendy G StoughCampbell University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 143 Main Street, Buies Creek, NC 27506, USA.
Ileana L PiñaDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Centre, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA.
Cecilia LindeDepartment of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, 171 76 Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jeffrey S BorerThe Howard Gilman Institute, State University of New York Downstate Medical Centre, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA.
Gaetano M De FerrariDepartment of Cardiology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Viale Camillo Golgi, 19, Pavia 27100, Italy.
Roxana MehranZena and Michael A. Weiner Cardiovascular, Mount Sinai Medical Centre, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Kenneth M SteinBoston Scientific Corporation, 4100 Hamline Avenue North, St. Paul, MN 55112-5798, USA.
Alphons VincentMedtronic, Route du Molliau 31, 1131 Tolochenaz, Switzerland.
Jay S YadavCardioMEMS, 387 Technology Circle Northwest #500, Atlanta, GA 30313, USA.
Stefan D AnkerCentre for Applied Cachexia Research, Department of Cardiology, Charité Medical School, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, University Medical Center Göttingen, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Faiez ZannadINSERM, Centre d'Investigation Clinique 9501 and Unité 961, 34 Cours Léopold, 54000 Nancy, France.
Boston Scientific (Netherlands) · NLCampbell University · USInserm · FRKarolinska Institutet · SEMedtronic (Ireland) · IEMontefiore Hospital · GBMount Sinai Medical Center · USPoliclinico San Matteo Fondazione · ITThe Ohio State University · USUniversity at Albany, State University of New York · USUniversity of Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implantable monitoring devices have been developed to detect early evidence of heart failure (HF) decompensation, with the hypothesis that early detection might enable clinicians to commence therapy sooner than would otherwise be possible, and potentially to reduce the rate of hospitalization. In addition to the usual challenges inherent to device trials (such as the difficulty of double-blinding and potential for bias), studies of implantable monitoring devices present unique difficulties because they involve assessment of therapeutic end points for diagnostic devices. Problems include the lack of uniform approaches to treatment in study protocols for device alerts or out-of-range values, and the requirement of levels of evidence traditionally associated with therapeutic devices to establish effectiveness and safety. In this Review, the approaches used to deal with these issues are discussed, including the use of objective primary end points with blinded adjudication, identical duration of follow-up and number of encounters for patients in active monitoring and control groups, and treatment recommendations between groups that are consistent with international guidelines. Remote monitoring devices hold promise for reducing the rate of hospitalization among patients with HF. However, optimization of regulatory approaches and clinical trial design is needed to facilitate further evaluation of the effectiveness of combining health information technology and medical devices.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEquipment DesignHeart FailureHumansMonitoring, Physiologic

Identifiers

PMID25113751
OpenAlexW2031315979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.