ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Real-world use of insertable cardiac monitor remote programming: A multicenter European experience.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) enable continuous arrhythmia monitoring but generate high transmission volumes, increasing clinical workload. The LUX-Dx ICM (Boston Scientific) allows remote reprogramming of device alert settings, potentially reducing in-office visits. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the real-world use of remote reprogramming after its initial commercialization in Europe and its impact on transmission burden. Methods: Deidentified data were collected from 697 consecutive patients across 23 European centers between 2022 and 2024. Results: Syncope (48%) was the most frequent indication for ICM implantation. Patients were followed for a median of 9 months (25th-75th percentile 4-13). A total of 401 reprogramming events (0.8 per patient-year) occurred in 230 ICMs, with 38% (95% confidence interval 34-43) of devices reprogrammed within 1 year. Of these, 156 (39%) were performed remotely. The overall transmission rate was 3.0 per patient-month (95% confidence interval 2.9-3.1): alert transmissions (64%), scheduled transmissions (31%), patient-initiated interrogations (4%), and clinician-initiated interrogations (1%). The rate of recorded episodes varied significantly by indication ( Conclusion: ICM reprogramming plays a key role in optimizing device performance and reducing remote monitoring burden. Currently used in 39% of cases, remote reprogramming holds potential for broader adoption to minimize in-office visits. Efficiency may be further improved by transitioning to an alert-based monitoring strategy and eliminating scheduled transmissions.
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.