ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Impact of Emergent Physician Notifications from Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry on Patient Outcomes (The EP-COT Trial).
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMobile ambulatory cardiac telemetry (MCOT) use has increased over time; however, data on the prevalence and the impact of emergent arrhythmia notifications with MCOT remains unclear. We sought to determine the prevalence and clinical impact of emergent arrhythmia events in patients undergoing MCOT monitoring. We also analyzed the efficiency of the emergent notification process.
methodsWe analyzed 8404 consecutive patients from two centers who were prescribed Philips MCOT (K153473) over a 28-month period (September 2018-January 2021). Participants meeting emergent notification criteria were included. The primary outcome was any unscheduled provider intervention after the emergent notification. We also analyzed several time domains of the provider notification process.
resultsA total of 122 patients (1.45%) satisfied emergent notification criteria during the study period. The median notification time from arrhythmia onset to provider notification was 42 min. Physician review of the arrhythmia notifications showed agreement with the monitoring technician diagnosis in 102/122 (83.6%). An emergent notification resulted in an unscheduled follow-up visit in 104/122 (85.2%) patients. Time from arrhythmia event to unscheduled follow up visit was < 24 h in 88/104 (84.6%), 24-72 h in 9/104 (8.7%) and > 72 h in 7/104 (6.7%). In 33 patients (27%), emergent notifications resulted in unscheduled interventions including: device implantation (24), ablation (8), and electrical cardioversion (4).
conclusionsEmergent arrhythmias events recorded during ambulatory telemetry monitoring resulted in unscheduled patient contact in 85% of cases and procedures in 27% of cases. The monitoring notification process was efficient, with median time from arrhythmia onset to provider notification of 42 min.
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.