Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34559368›Full record

SynthesisHeart failure reviews2022

Remote monitoring for heart failure using implantable devices: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials.

Alexander G Hajduczok, Samer N Muallem, Matthew S Nudy, Ami L DeWaters, John P Boehmer

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Remote monitoring of severe heart failure.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alexander G HajduczokDivision of Internal Medicine, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA. alexander.hajduczok@jefferson.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4180-4481
Samer N MuallemDivision of Internal Medicine, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA.
Matthew S NudyDivision of Cardiology, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, PA, H047, 17033, Hershey, USA.
Ami L DeWatersDivision of Internal Medicine, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA.
John P BoehmerDivision of Cardiology, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, PA, H047, 17033, Hershey, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In heart failure (HF) patients, remote monitoring using implantable devices may be used to predict and reduce HF exacerbations and mortality. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed to determine the effectiveness of implantable remote monitoring on the improvement of outcomes in HF patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs testing remote monitoring versus standard of care for management of HF patients was performed. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and a composite of cardiovascular (CV) and HF hospitalizations. Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A secondary analysis tested for heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) comparing right ventricular/pulmonary pressure monitoring versus impedance-based monitoring on hospitalization. A regression analysis was performed using the mean follow-up time as the moderator on each primary endpoint. Eleven RCTs (n = 6196) were identified with a mean follow-up of 21.9 months. The mean age and reported ejection fraction were 64.1 years and 27.7%, respectively. Remote monitoring did not reduce mortality (RR 0.89 [95% CI 0.77, 1.03]) or the composite of CV and HF hospitalizations (RR 0.98 [0.81, 1.19]). Subgroup analysis found significant HTE for hospitalizations between those studies that used right ventricular/pulmonary pressure monitoring versus impedance-based monitoring (I

Indexed as

Heart FailureRemote Sensing TechnologyHospitalizationHumansProstheses and ImplantsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStroke VolumeVentricular Function, LeftHeart failureImplantable devicesMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialsRemote monitoringSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34559368
PMCPMC8460850

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.