Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2023
Real-World Disparities in Remote Follow-Up of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single-Center Experience.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Equity at the Intersection of Heart Failure and Interventions: A Review of the Spectrum From Ambulatory Care to Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- Characteristics of hospital and health system initiatives to address social determinants of health in the United States: a scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been shown to improve cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. To date, no studies have investigated disparities in use and delivery of RM. This study was performed to investigate if racial and socioeconomic disparities are present in cardiac implantable electronic device RM. Methods and Results This was a retrospective observational cohort study at a single tertiary care center in the United States. Patients who received a newly implanted cardiac implantable electronic device or device upgrade between January 2017 and December 2020 were included. Patients were classified as RM positive (RM+) when they underwent at least ≥2 remote interrogations per year during follow-up. Of all eligible patients, 2520 patients were included, and 34% were women. The mean follow-up was 25 months. Mean age was 71±14 years. Pacemakers constituted 66% of implanted devices, whereas 26% were implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and 8% were cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Most patients (83%) were of European American ancestry. During follow-up, 66% of patients were classified as RM+. Patients who were younger, European American, college-educated, lived in a county with higher median household income, and were active on the hospital's patient portals were more frequently RM+. In an adjusted regression model, RM+ remained associated with the use of the online patient portal (odds ratio [OR], 2.889 [95% CI, 2.387-3.497]), presence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (OR, 1.489 [95% CI, 1.207-1.835]), advanced college degree (OR, 1.244 [95% CI, 1.014-1.527]), and lastly with European American ancestry (
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.