ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2014
Patient perspective on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: rationale and design of the REMOTE-CIED study.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes in European heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: secondary results of the REMOTE-CIED randomized trial.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 · 2022Trial
- From Clinic to Cloud: Efficacy of AI-Assisted Remote Monitoring of Patients With Implantable Cardiac Devices.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2025Review
- Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections in Saudi Arabia: Incidence, Timing, Causative Organisms, and Outcomes - A Multicenter Study.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2025Article
- A real-world experience of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardiac defibrillators-comparison with the PRAETORIAN study.Journal of arrhythmia · 2022Article
- Patient satisfaction with remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: the VALIOSA questionnaire.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Patient experiences and preferences for follow-up.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2019Article
- Effectiveness of a comprehensive interactive eHealth intervention on patient-reported and clinical outcomes in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator [ACQUIRE-ICD trial]: study protocol of a national Danish randomised controlled trial.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Article
- Patient Perspectives on Health Data Privacy and Management: "Where Is My Data and Whose Is It?"International journal of telemedicine and applications · 2018Article
- Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Permanent Pacemakers: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2018Review
- [Active cardiac implantable electronic devices: What is possible in ambulatory health care in 2017?]Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2017Review
- E-Health: a novel way to redesigning healthcare.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2016Article
- Clinical effects of an optimised care program with telehealth in heart failure patients in a community hospital in the Netherlands.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2015Article
- How to encourage patients with implanted electronic cardiac devices to participate in remote monitoring and follow-up?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemote patient monitoring is a safe and effective alternative for the in-clinic follow-up of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, evidence on the patient perspective on remote monitoring is scarce and inconsistent.
objectivesThe primary objective of the REMOTE-CIED study is to evaluate the influence of remote patient monitoring versus in-clinic follow-up on patient-reported outcomes. Secondary objectives are to: 1) identify subgroups of patients who may not be satisfied with remote monitoring; and 2) investigate the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring.
methodsThe REMOTE-CIED study is an international randomised controlled study that will include 900 consecutive heart failure patients implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compatible with the Boston Scientific LATITUDE® Remote Patient Management system at participating centres in five European countries. Patients will be randomised to remote monitoring or in-clinic follow-up. The In-Clinic group will visit the outpatient clinic every 3-6 months, according to standard practice. The Remote Monitoring group only visits the outpatient clinic at 12 and 24 months post-implantation, other check-ups are performed remotely. Patients are asked to complete questionnaires at five time points during the 2-year follow-up.
conclusionThe REMOTE-CIED study will provide insight into the patient perspective on remote monitoring in ICD patients, which could help to support patient-centred care in the future.
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.