ArticleHeart rhythm O22021
Performance of first pacemaker to use smart device app for remote monitoring.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Timely transmission of alert events and prompt management of ventricular arrhythmias using app-based remote monitoring in a patient with a cardiac implantable electronic device.HeartRhythm case reports · 2026Article
- Smartphone-Based Remote Monitoring for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Transmission Performance and Early Alert Responsiveness.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Powered Wearable and Portable Devices for Remote Cardiac Care and Population Health.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in pediatric arrhythmias: current landscape, unique challenges, and translational perspectives.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Continuous Monitoring in Implantable Cardiac Devices: Electro-Quasistatic Human Body Communication - Challenges and Opportunities.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- From Clinic to Cloud: Efficacy of AI-Assisted Remote Monitoring of Patients With Implantable Cardiac Devices.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2025Review
- How secure are your health devices-stopping wearables becoming a personal and national security risk?NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Smartphone App-Based Remote Monitoring Challenges in Patients with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillators-A Multicenter Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Connected to the cloud at time of death: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2024Article
- Insights From a Clinically Orientated Workshop on Health Care Cybersecurity and Medical Technology: Observational Study and Thematic Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices using smart device interface versus radiofrequency-based interface: A systematic review.Journal of arrhythmia · 2024Article
- Reducing inappropriate and unnecessary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: Is patient confirmation via a mobile application the solution?Heart rhythm O2 · 2023Article
- Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices and disease management.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
- 2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
- Performance of alert transmissions from cardiac implantable electronic devices to the CareLink network: A retrospective analysis.Cardiovascular digital health journal · 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
- Early Smartphone App-Based Remote Diagnosis of Silent Atrial Fibrillation and Ventricular Fibrillation in a Patient with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillator.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- Smartphone-based cardiac implantable electronic device remote monitoring: improved compliance and connectivity.European heart journal. Digital health · 2023Article
- The patient perspective on remote monitoring of implantable cardiac devices.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 19 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh adherence to remote monitoring (RM) in pacemaker (PM) patients improves outcomes; however, adherence remains suboptimal. Bluetooth low-energy (BLE) technology in newer-generation PMs enables communication directly with patient-owned smart devices using an app without a bedside console.
objectiveTo evaluate the success rate of scheduled RM transmissions using the app compared to other RM methods.
methodsThe BlueSync Field Evaluation was a prospective, international cohort evaluation, measuring the success rate of scheduled RM transmissions using a BLE PM or cardiac resynchronization therapy PM coupled with the MyCareLink Heart app. App transmission success was compared to 3 historical "control" groups from the Medtronic de-identified CareLink database: (1) PM patients with manual communication using a wand with a bedside console (PM manual transmission), (2) PM patients with wireless automatic communication with the bedside console (PM wireless); (3) defibrillator patients with similar automatic communication (defibrillator wireless).
resultsAmong 245 patients enrolled (age 64.8±15.6 years, 58.4% men), 953 transmissions were scheduled through 12 months, of which 902 (94.6%) were successfully completed. In comparison, transmission success rates were 56.3% for PM manual transmission patients, 77.0% for PM wireless patients, and 87.1% for defibrillator wireless patients. Transmission success with the app was superior across matched cohorts based on age, sex, and device type (single vs dual vs triple chamber).
conclusionThe success rate of scheduled RM transmissions was higher among patients using the smart device app compared to patients using traditional RM using bedside consoles. This novel technology may improve patient engagement and adherence to RM.
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.