Trial reportPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2024
Informational letters or postcards to initiate remote monitoring among veterans with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A randomized, controlled trial.
Trial report in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2024. 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRemote monitoring (RM) of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is a Class 1, Level of Evidence A recommendation because of its multitude of clinical benefits. However, RM adherence rates are suboptimal, precluding patients from achieving these benefits. There is a need for direct-to-patient efforts to improve adherence.
methodsIn this national randomized, controlled trial conducted in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), 2120 patients with a pacemaker or ICD who had not sent an RM transmission for ≥1 year (and usually ≥3 years) while under VHA care for their device were randomly assigned to be mailed a postcard (n = 1076) or a detailed letter (n = 1044). The postcard described what RM does and its key benefits (reduced mortality and fewer in-person visits). The letter provided a similar message but included more details about RM benefits and the process. The primary outcome was an RM transmission sent within 90 days of mailing, and a secondary outcome was an RM transmission sent within 365 days.
resultsThe primary outcome was achieved in 121 (11.3%) in the postcard and 96 patients (9.2%) in the letter group (p = .12). The secondary outcome was achieved in 266 (24.7%) and 239 (22.9%), respectively (p = .32).
conclusionsThis randomized trial showed no significant difference in the proportion of chronically non-adherent patients who sent an RM transmission after receiving a low-cost postcard or a detailed, higher-cost letter encouraging their participation in RM. However, as only a minority of patients responded to either, further work is needed to engage patients in the life-saving benefits of RM.
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.