ArticleThe Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management2023
Remote-control Interrogation, Testing, and Reprogramming of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices with Telehealth Protocol for the Management of Patients at Home: The DOMUM REMOTUS Study.
Article in The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management, 2023. 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.
- Clinical experience with remote programming of cardiac implantable electronic devices.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Remote control (RC) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has been tested as safe and effective in the magnetic resonance imaging space. We sought to evaluate RC applications of patients at home. RC of cardiac devices in patients' homes is feasible, safe, and effective, with consistent patient satisfaction. Patients with CIEDs using the CareLink™ network (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) participated in a pair of home RC sessions. A technician visited the patient's house and set up a telehealth tablet and a programmer, which included inputting a session key enabling programmer access via a third-party host. The investigator video-conferenced with the patient and remotely controlled the programmer for device testing and data assessment, using a cellular hotspot for Internet connection. Reprogramming was performed as necessary. In all cases, an RC session legend was programmed in the device information field as a control. The patients then completed an experience questionnaire. One hundred fifty patients (99 pacemakers and 51 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators) completed 2 RC sessions, for 300 RC sessions in total. There were no complications or communication interruptions once the system communication proved stable after the first minute. In 26 sessions, initial communication was interrupted upon device interrogation, requiring communication to be re-established (which sometimes necessitated switching to an alternative carrier). Clinically driven parameter reprogramming was performed in 58 RC sessions (39%). Programming of notations concerning RC sessions was performed in all 300 sessions. The average duration of the RC sessions was 11 min. Patients' satisfaction scored 4.5 out of 5 points. In conclusion, RC management of cardiac devices at patients' homes is safe, effective, convenient, and associated with high patient satisfaction. This technology may prove very useful in a changing health care delivery system, especially amid the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
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.