ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2025
Clinical Outcomes on Remote Monitoring Compliance in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 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.
- Economic Evaluations of Algorithm-Enabled Remote Monitoring of Adults With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes on Remote Monitoring Compliance in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Remote monitoring (RM) is crucial in managing patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), and has been reported to improve clinical outcomes. The study's objective is to investigate whether compliance to RM has affected patients' long-term clinical outcomes. Methods: This was a prospective single-center cohort study of consecutive patients on RM with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator followed up from 2018 to 2024. For analysis, patients were stratified according to whether they were compliant with RM. Compliance was defined as having ≥ 2 scheduled transmissions per year. Outcomes studied were the combined endpoints of all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Results: We analyzed 207 patients, of whom 58 (28.1%) were compliant and 149 (71.9%) were non-compliant. Baseline demographics were similar between both arms. We observed 6.9% (4/58) of compliant patients with all-cause mortality, compared to 15.4% (23/149) of non-compliant patients. Four percent (2/56) of compliant patients had a hospitalization for heart failure, compared to 12.2% (18/147) of non-compliant patients. The Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested differences in the mortality and heart failure hospitalization survival function for compliant versus non-compliant patients. Among 166 patients with available covariate data in the multivariable exponential accelerated failure time model, the time until mortality or heart failure hospitalization was longer for compliant compared to non-compliant patients (acceleration factor 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.81; Conclusion: RM compliance was associated with significantly lower combined end-points of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations, even though individual outcomes (mortality or HF hospitalization) did not reach statistical significance.
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.