ArticleActa cardiologica2025
International survey of cardiac device clinic staff determining patient-perceived challenges with remote monitoring.
Article in Acta cardiologica, 2025. 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.
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
backgroundRegular interaction with patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) provides CIED clinic personnel with unique insights into patient-related barriers and challenges to remote monitoring (RM) implementation.
methodsUsing a global network, an international survey was administered to CIED clinic personnel. Qualitative questions gathered information on perceived challenges with patient connectivity and patient-level barriers associated with RM implementation.
resultsA total of 339 responses from 302 unique centres were included in the analysis. Respondents most often were cardiac electrophysiologists (57.8%), followed by nurses (17.1%) and nurse practitioners (7.7%). Most respondents (84.7%) reported at least one challenge in daily RM management. The biggest challenge was the increasing data volume and data variability (38.3%), followed by staff shortage (33.8%), difficulties with billing for technical activities (20.2%), and insufficient RM reimbursement (16.0%). Patient connectivity was identified as a major barrier by 72.7% of respondents. The main concerns were patient literacy (80.8%), followed by a lack of patient understanding of RM importance (65.8%), the lack of required bandwidth or technology to support RM (49.6%), and the cost to the patient (47.9%). Subgroup analyses showed that patient connectivity was often identified as a major barrier by non-MD CIED clinic staff, respondents working in office-based CIED clinics, and respondents from clinics with a per-patient payment reimbursement model.
conclusionsThere are many patient-related barriers identified by non-MD CIED clinic staff. Dedicated strategies to optimise the utilisation and adherence of RM of patients with CIEDs are urgently needed to improve clinical outcomes.
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.