ArticlePacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2019
Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Patient experiences and preferences for follow-up.
Article in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- 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
- Recommendations for sharing cardiovascular implantable electronic device data with patients based on clinician interviews.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Comparison Between In-Office Versus Remote Follow-Up Costs in Patients with Pacemakers and Reimbursed Transportation in a Portuguese District Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Outcomes associated with remote monitoring without in-person evaluations for patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- From Clinic to Cloud: Efficacy of AI-Assisted Remote Monitoring of Patients With Implantable Cardiac Devices.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2025Review
- Testing a Novel Design Framework for Patient-Facing Machine Learning-Based Predictions of Heart Failure Decompensation.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Article
- Remote monitoring in implantable cardiac devices: A care solution or alert pollution?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Article
- Article
- Patients' Experienced Usability and Satisfaction With Digital Health Solutions in a Home Setting: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Remote Monitoring of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Very Elderly Patients: Advantages and Specific Problems.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- A web-based intervention for patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator - A qualitative study of nurses' experiences (Data from the ACQUIRE-ICD study).PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Strategies to enhance remote monitoring adherence among patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.Heart rhythm O2 · 2023Article
- Article
- [Acceptance of telemetric care for patients with sICD safety advice : Qualitative interview study in cardiological health services research].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 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
- New insertable cardiac monitors show high diagnostic yield and good safety profile in real-world clinical practice: results from the international prospective observational SMART Registry.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 · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient satisfaction with remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) seems to be high, yet knowledge on long-term patient experiences is limited. The European REMOTE-CIED study explored patients' experiences with RPM, examined patient's preferences for ICD follow-up, and identified determinants of patient's preferences in the first 2 years postimplantation.
methodsEuropean heart failure patients (N = 300; median age = 66 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 59-73], and 22% female) with a first-time ICD received a Boston Scientific LATITUDE RPM system (Marlborough, MA, USA) and had scheduled in-clinic follow-ups once a year. Patients completed questionnaires at 1-2 weeks and also at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postimplantation and clinical data were obtained from their medical records. Patient evaluation data were analyzed descriptively, and Student's t-tests/Man-Whitney U tests or Chi-square tests/Fisher's exact tests were performed to examine determinants of patient preferences.
resultsAt 2 years postimplantation, the median patient satisfaction score with the RPM system was 9 out of 10 (IQR = 8-10), despite 53% of the patients experiencing issues (eg, failure to transmit data). Of the 221 patients who reported their follow-up preferences, 43% preferred RPM and 19% preferred in-clinic follow-up. Patients with a preference for RPM were more likely to be higher educated (P = 0.04), employed (P = 0.04), and equipped with a new LATITUDE model (P = 0.04), but less likely to suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.009).
conclusionIn general, patients were highly satisfied with RPM, but a subgroup preferred in-clinic follow-up. Therefore, physicians should include patients' concerns and preferences in the decision-making process, to tailor device follow-up to individual patients' needs and preferences.
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.