ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Monitoring of Remotely Reprogrammable Implantable Loop Recorders With Algorithms to Reduce False-Positive Alerts.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized controlled trial of remote monitoring for cardiac implantable loop recorders: stay-away trial.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Advances in cardiac devices and bioelectronics augmented with artificial intelligence.The Journal of physiology · 2026Review
- Safety, performance, and remote programming utilization of an insertable cardiac monitor: The LUX-Dx PERFORM study.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Coexistence of R-Wave Oversensing and Undersensing in an Implantable Loop Recorder: The Issue of Multiple Sensing in Implantable Loop Recorders.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Real-world use of insertable cardiac monitor remote programming: A multicenter European experience.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- Veterans health administration national cardiac device surveillance program: Structured, centralized remote monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices to improve quality of care.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Review
- Importance of Raw-Data Analysis When Determining the Cause of Pause Alerts Transmitted by an Implantable Loop Recorder Remote Monitoring Devices.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Article
- Daily Measurements from Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices to Assess Health Status.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Implantation of a novel insertable cardiac monitor: preliminary multicenter experience in Europe.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024Review
- Global Results of Implantable Loop Recorder for Detection of Atrial Fibrillation After Stroke: Reveal LINQ Registry.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplantable loop recorders (ILRs) are increasingly placed for arrhythmia detection. However, historically, ≈75% of ILR alerts are false positives, requiring significant time and effort for adjudication. The LINQII and LUX-Dx are remotely reprogrammable ILRs with dual-stage algorithms using artificial intelligence to reduce false positives, but their utility in routine clinical practice has not been studied. METHODS AND
resultsWe identified patients with the LINQII and LUX-Dx who were monitored by the Veterans Affairs National Cardiac Device Surveillance Program between March and June 2022. ILR programming was customized on the basis of implant indication. All alerts and every 90-day scheduled transmissions were manually reviewed. ILRs were remotely reprogrammed, as appropriate, after false-positive alerts or 2 consecutive same-type alerts, unless there was ongoing clinical need for that alert. Outcomes were total number of transmissions and false positives. We performed medical record review to determine if patients experienced any adverse clinical events, including hospitalization and mortality. Among 117 LINQII patients, there were 239 total alerts, 43 (18.0%) of which were false positives. Among 105 LUX-Dx patients, there were 300 total alerts, 115 (38.3%) of which were false positives. LINQIIs were reprogrammed 22 times, resulting in a decrease in median alerts/day from 0.13 to 0.03. LUX-Dx ILRs were reprogrammed 52 times, resulting in a decrease from 0.15 to 0.01 median alerts/day. There were no adverse clinical events that could have been identified by superior or earlier arrhythmia detection.
conclusionsILRs with artificial intelligence algorithms and remote reprogramming ability are associated with reduced alert burden because of higher true-positive rates than prior ILRs, without missing potentially consequential arrhythmias.
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.