Trial reportEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes2019
Remote monitoring and clinical outcomes: details on information flow and workflow in the IN-TIME study.
Trial report in European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implant-based multi-parameter telemonitoring of patients with heart failure and a defibrillator with vs. without cardiac resynchronization therapy option: a subanalysis of the IN-TIME trial.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019Trial
- Personalized Remote Patient Management in Heart Failure : From Implanted Hemodynamic Monitoring Toward an Artificial Intelligence-Supported Adaptive Care Cycle.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Article
- Review
- Integrating remote CIED monitoring into heart failure care: evidence, challenges, and opportunities.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- 2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
- Performance of alert transmissions from cardiac implantable electronic devices to the CareLink network: A retrospective analysis.Cardiovascular digital health journal · 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
- Diabetes Remote Monitoring Program Implementation: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Delivery Strategies, Barriers and Facilitators.Telemedicine reports · 2023Article
- Influential Factors in Remote Monitoring of Heart Failure Patients: A Review of the Literature and Direction for Future Research.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsRandomized clinical trials investigating a possible outcome effect of remote monitoring in patients with implantable defibrillators have shown conflicting results. This study analyses the information flow and workflow details from the IN-TIME study and discusses whether differences of message content, information speed and completeness, and workflow may contribute to the heterogeneous results. METHODS AND
resultsIN-TIME randomized 664 patients with an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator indication to daily remote monitoring vs. control. After 12 months, a composite clinical score and all-cause mortality were improved in the remote monitoring arm. Messages were received on 83.1% of out-of-hospital days. Daily transmissions were interrupted 2.3 times per patient-year for more than 3 days. During 1 year, absolute transmission success declined by 3.3%. Information on medical events was available after 1 day (3 days) in 83.1% (94.3%) of the cases. On all working days, a central monitoring unit informed investigators of protocol defined events. Investigators contacted patients with a median delay of 1 day and arranged follow-ups, the majority of which took place within 1 week of the event being available.
conclusionOnly limited data on the information flow and workflow have been published from other studies which failed to improve outcome. However, a comparison of those data to IN-TIME suggest that the ability to see a patient early after clinical events may be inferior to the set-up in IN-TIME. These differences may be responsible for the heterogeneity found in clinical effectiveness of remote monitoring concepts.
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.