Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32002732›Full record

SynthesisHeart failure reviews2020

Remote monitoring of implantable cardiac devices in heart failure patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Sultan Alotaibi, Jaime Hernandez-Montfort, Omar E Ali, Karim El-Chilali, Bernardo A Perez

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Remote monitoring and outcomes in heart failure: 5-year study.Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Connected to the cloud at time of death: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Sultan AlotaibiCardiac Center, King Fahad Armed Forces Hospital, Jeddah, 23311, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-9165-3036
Jaime Hernandez-MontfortDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Omar E AliDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Karim El-ChilaliDepartment of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Medicine, Prosper Hospital, Recklinghausen, Germany.
Bernardo A PerezDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. b.a.perez@lse.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6518-9789

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to determine whether the use of remote monitoring (RM) in implantable cardiac devices decreases all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization. We sought to conduct a systematic review and a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled studies. The population is adult patients with a diagnosis of HF with implantable devices. The intervention is RM using implantable cardiac devices whether added or used alone compared to standard of care. The outcomes are HF-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria defined in the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessment of risk of bias. Data were extracted and validity was assessed independently by two reviewers. Electronic databases EMBASE and MEDLINE (Ovid) were searched up to 14th of October 2019, supplemented by a second search in CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and clinicaltrials.gov. Only randomized controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals with full format text in English of adult HF patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months reporting mortality and/or hospitalization. Observational studies and studies that did not meet inclusion criteria were excluded. Thirteen randomized controlled studies that enrolled a total of 7015 patients were identified, 7 of which reported on all-cause mortality only and included 4460 patients. Compared with standard of care, the pooled relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalization in patients with RM compared to those receiving standard of care was 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.11) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.78-1.16), respectively. In the subgroup analysis, using pulmonary pressure for RM was associated with a decrease in HF-related hospitalization (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.60-0.88). RM showed benefit in reducing HF-related hospitalization when compared to standard of care only when using pulmonary pressure monitoring.

Indexed as

Defibrillators, ImplantableRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHeart FailureHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicQuality of LifeTelemedicineHaemodynamic monitoringHeart failureHospitalizationsMeta-analysisMortality

Identifiers

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.