SynthesisHeart failure reviews2020
Remote monitoring of implantable cardiac devices in heart failure patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure.Heart rhythm · 2023Guideline
- Digital Biomarker-Based Interventions: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Optimal effectiveness of heart failure management - an umbrella review of meta-analyses examining the effectiveness of interventions to reduce (re)hospitalizations in heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Remote monitoring for heart failure using implantable devices: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials.Heart failure reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Patient-Centered mHealth Intervention to Improve Self-Care in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: Phase 1 Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Alert-driven vs scheduled remote monitoring of implantable cardiac defibrillators: A cost-consequence analysis from the TRUST trial.Heart rhythm · 2023Trial
- Remote monitoring and outcomes in heart failure: 5-year study.Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2026Article
- Factors Influencing Adherence to Non-Invasive Telemedicine in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review.Clinics and practice · 2025Review
- Connected to the cloud at time of death: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2024Article
- 2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
- Qualitative analysis of a remote monitoring intervention for managing heart failure.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- Qualitative Analysis of a Remote Monitoring Intervention for Managing Heart Failure.Research square · 2023Article
- Economic analysis of remote monitoring in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators in the Trento area, Italy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Digital Biomarker-Based Studies: Scoping Review of Systematic Reviews.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Article
- Catheter-Based Management of Heart Failure: Pathophysiology and Contemporary Data.Interventional cardiology clinics · 2022Review
- Patient monitoring across the spectrum of heart failure disease management 10 years after the CHAMPION trial.ESC heart failure · 2021Review
- Remote monitoring and telemedicine in heart failure: implementation and benefits.Current cardiology reports · 2021Review
- The Future of Telemedicine in the Management of Heart Failure Patients.Cardiac failure review · 2021Review
- Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device versus orthotopic heart transplantation in adults with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2021Article
- Remote Monitoring in Chronic Heart Failure Patients: Is Non-Invasive Remote Monitoring the Way to Go?Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
32002732What 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.