ArticleHeart rhythm O22023
Data deluge from remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices and importance of clinical stratification.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recommendations for sharing cardiovascular implantable electronic device data with patients based on clinician interviews.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Article
- Atrial fibrillation detection in endurance athletes vs non-athletes: Positive predictive value and burden estimation using implantable cardiac monitors.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Exploring Optimal Cardiac Electronic Implantable Devices Programming: Reducing Non-Actionable Alerts and Assessing Clinical Outcomes.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Article
- Contemporary Advances in Cardiac Remote Monitoring: A Comprehensive, Updated Mini-Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Remote monitoring (RM) has been accepted as a standard of care for follow-up of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, the resulting data deluge poses major challenge to device clinics. Objective: This study aimed to quantify the data deluge from CIED and stratify these data based on clinical relevance. Methods: The study included patients from 67 device clinics across the United States being remotely monitored by Octagos Health. The CIEDs included implantable loop recorders, pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers. Transmissions were either dismissed before reaching the clinical practice if they were repetitive or redundant or were forwarded if they were either clinically relevant or actionable transmission (alert). The alerts were further classified as level 1, 2, or 3 based on clinical urgency. Results: A total of 32,721 patients with CIEDs were included. There were 14,465 (44.2%) patients with pacemakers, 8381 (25.6%) with implantable loop recorders, 5351 (16.4%) with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, 3531 (10.8%) with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators, and 993 (3%) with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers. Over a period of 2 years of RM, 384,796 transmissions were received. Of these, 220,049 (57%) transmissions were dismissed, as they were either redundant or repetitive. Only 164,747 (43%) transmissions were transmitted to the clinicians, of which only 13% (n = 50,440) had clinical alerts, while 30.6% (n = 114,307) were routine transmissions. Conclusion: Our study shows that data deluge from RM of CIEDs can be streamlined by utilization of appropriate screening strategies that will enhance efficiency of device clinics and provide better patient care.
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.