Trial reportBMC geriatrics2020
Long-term cost-utility analysis of remote monitoring of older patients with pacemakers: the PONIENTE study.
Trial report in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02234245 (Economic Evaluation in Cardiology), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 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.
Economic Evaluation in Cardiology: Remote Monitoring of Pacemakers
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the Cost-Effectiveness of Telemonitoring Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Long-Term Remote vs. Conventional Monitoring of Pacemakers: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Current cardiology reports · 2023Pooled it
- Knowledge Update on the Economic Evaluation of Pacemaker Telemonitoring Systems.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Identifying and Comparing Intervention Cost Components in Remote Patient Monitoring: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- A randomized controlled trial of remote monitoring for cardiac implantable loop recorders: stay-away trial.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Efficiency of Exclusive Remote Monitoring in Pacemaker Follow-Up.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Article
- Health economic evaluations of digital health technologies-a rapid review of applied methods.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- 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
- Remote Patient Monitoring: What Have We Learned and Where Are We Going?Current cardiovascular risk reports · 2023Review
- Remote Monitoring of CIEDs-For Both Safety, Economy and Convenience?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Article
- Review
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCost-effectiveness studies on pacemakers have increased in the last years. However the number of long-term cost-utility studies is limited. The objective of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing remote monitoring (RM) versus conventional monitoring (CM) in hospital of older patients with pacemakers, 5 years after implant.
methodsUnder a controlled, not randomized, nor masked clinical trial, 83 patients with pacemakers were initially selected. After five years of follow-up, a total of 55 patients (CM = 34; RM = 21) completed the study. A cost-utility analysis of RM in terms of costs per gained quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was conducted. The costs from the Public Health System (PHS) as well as patients and their relatives were taken into account for the study. The robustness of the results was verified by the probabilistic analyses through Monte-Carlo simulations.
resultsAfter a five-year follow-up period, total costs were lower in the RM group by 23.02% than in the CM group (€274.52 versus €356.62; p = 0.033) because of a cost saving from patients' perspective (€59.05 versus €102.98; p = 0.002). However, the reduction of in-hospital visits derived from RM exhibited insignificant impact on the costs from the PHS perspective, with a cost saving of 15.04% (€215.48 vs. €253.64; p = 0.144). Costs/QALYs obtained by the RM group were higher as compared to the CM group, although there were no significant differences. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CM in comparison to RM became positive (€301.16).
conclusionsThis study confirms RM of older patients with pacemakers appears still as a cost-utility alternative to CM in hospital after 5 years of follow-up.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: (Identifier: NCT02234245 ). Registered 09 September 2014 - Prospectively registered.
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.