ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Comparative Diagnostic Efficacy of HeartLogic and TriageHF Algorithms in Remote Monitoring of Heart Failure: A Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 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.
- Review
- Invasive and Non-Invasive Remote Patient Monitoring Devices for Heart Failure: A Comparative Review of Technical Maturity and Clinical Readiness.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImplantable defibrillator devices (ICDs) can be used for remote monitoring of different variables, including some related to Heart Failure (HF). Two different algorithms (TriageHF and HeartLogic) arise by combining some of these variables to generate an estimation of HF decompensation risk in the following days. Until now, no other trial has evaluated both algorithms in a head-to-head comparison. The primary objective is to compare diagnostic accuracy of both algorithms in a similar cohort of patients. MATERIAL AND
methodsDescriptive monocentric cohort study of a series of 64 patients who have been implanted with a Medtronic or Boston Scientific ICD with the TriageHF or Heart Logic algorithm available during the period between January 2020 and June 2022, with a total of 27 patients in the HeartLogic group and 37 patients in the TriageHF group.
resultsDuring the period of the study there were a total of 1142 alarms analyzed. There were no differences in the basal characteristics of both groups. We reported a risk alarm-patient ratio of 1.31 ± 1.89 in the HeartLogic group and of 3.32 ± 3.08 in the TriageHF group (
conclusionsTriageHF algorithm had higher sensibility and PPV, leading to a higher number of alerts/patients, while HeartLogic algorithm had a better specificity. These differences should be considered to optimize patient follow-ups in home monitoring.
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.