ArticleHeart rhythm O22022
Remote monitoring of pacemakers and defibrillators: Effective and safe in Brazil?
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has become a common method of in-home monitoring and follow-up in high-income countries given its effectiveness, safety, convenience, and the possibility of early intervention. However, in Brazil, RM is still underutilized. Objectives: This observational study aims to demonstrate our experience of using RM in Brazil and the predictive factors of RM of CIED follow-up in Brazil. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of patients with a CIED. Event rates are reported and clinical responses to those findings and outcomes based on the detection of RM. A logistic regression model was performed to identify predictors of more events, with Results: This study evaluated consecutive 119 patients: 30.2% with pacemakers, 42.8% with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 22.7% with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with defibrillator, and 3.3% with CRT with pacemaker. Events were detected in 63.9% of the cases in 29.5 ± 23 months of follow-up. The outcomes found were that 44.5% needed elective evaluation in medical treatment and 23.5% needed immediate evaluation in therapy. Logistic regression analysis showed that the groups with CRT or CRT with defibrillator (75.0%), reduced ejection fraction (76.5%), and New York Heart Association functional class ≥II (75.0%) had the highest RM event rates. Conclusions: RM proved to be effective and safe in the follow-up of patients with CIEDs in Brazil, allowing early interventions and facilitating therapeutic management.
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.