ArticleCardiovascular digital health journal2024
Determinants of global cardiac implantable electrical device remote monitoring utilization - Results from an international survey.
Article in Cardiovascular digital health journal, 2024. 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.
- Current practices in managing patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: Results of an international survey.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- Concerns on digital health from a cardiac implantable electrical device remote monitoring clinic perspective: results from an international survey.Heart rhythm O2 · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Despite near-global availability of remote monitoring (RM) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), there is a high geographical variability in the uptake and use of RM. The underlying reasons for this geographic disparity remain largely unknown. Objectives: To study the determinants of worldwide RM utilization and identify locoregional barriers of RM uptake. Methods: An international survey was administered to all CIED clinic personnel using the Heart Rhythm Society global network collecting demographic information, as well as information on the use of RM, the organization of the CIED clinic, and details on local reimbursement and clinic funding. The most complete response from each center was included in the current analysis. Stepwise forward multivariate linear regression was performed to identify determinants of the percentage of patients with a CIED on RM. Results: A total of 302 responses from 47 different countries were included, 61.3% by physicians and 62.3% from hospital-based CIED clinics. The median percentage of CIED patients on RM was 80% (interquartile range, 40-90). Predictors of RM use were gross national income per capita (0.76% per US$1000, 95% CI 0.72-1.00, Conclusion: The high variability in RM utilization can partly be explained by economic and structural barriers that may warrant specific efforts by all stakeholders to increase RM utilization.
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.