ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Current clinical practice versus remote monitoring recommendations for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: A real-world analysis from a remote monitoring database.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. 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.
- Integrating remote CIED monitoring into heart failure care: evidence, challenges, and opportunities.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Contemporary issues in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Personalising device therapy.Indian heart journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The recently published Consensus Statement on the Practical Management of Remote Device Clinics offers recommendations for managing patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). They recommend activating remote monitoring (RM) soon after implantation and maintaining connectivity. Moreover, it is reasonable to replace scheduled device follow-up with alert-based RM, with alert parameters customized to clinical indications to reduce RM workload. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate current clinical practice to inform adjustments to better follow recommendations and improve use of RM. Methods: Data from 6553 CIED patients followed on the LATITUDE (Boston Scientific) remote network at 26 centers between 2010 and 2023 were analyzed. Median RM duration was 40 months. Results: Patient enrollment significantly increased over the observation period. The proportion of patients enrolled within 2 weeks of implantation was 73% and within 3 months was 94%. At the time of data extraction, 14% of patients had interrupted connectivity. Scheduled device transmissions were programmed at least once every 3 months in 96% of patients for all CIED types. In 2023, 6600 in-office interrogations were performed, and 70,453 remote transmissions were reviewed. Scheduled transmissions accounted for 52% of the total, patient-initiated interrogations for 28% and alert transmissions for 20%. Conclusion: The use of RM in clinical practice is increasing, with more in-office and remote visits. Centers are not adopting the alert-based RM strategy, which would enable them to reduce the significant burden of nonactionable remote and in-office visits.
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.