ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Recommendations for sharing cardiovascular implantable electronic device data with patients based on clinician interviews.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) capture an abundance of data that requires specific medical knowledge to interpret. Currently, there are no clear recommendations for sharing clinically meaningful CIED data with patients from the abundance of data in CIED remote monitoring reports. Objective: The objectives of this study were to explore clinicians' perceptions of clinical care gaps related to CIED data that could be improved through patient access to data and to generate recommendations for sharing CIED data with patients. Methods: In this institutional review board-exempt, 2-phase sequential qualitative study, 42 semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 32 clinicians in the United States who specialize in the care of patients with CIEDs. Phase 1 explored clinical care gaps related to CIED data, and phase 2 involved questions about sharing CIED data with patients in 3 device-specific scenarios. Results: Clinicians identified mechanisms by which sharing data with patients could close gaps in care, for example, improving timeliness of anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation. However, clinicians expressed concerns about sharing data as well as beliefs that it would not alter patient care. Conclusion: Based on clinician interviews, patient access to data from CIED reports has potential to improve care. Recommendations synthesized from the findings included displaying battery status and presence/absence of episodes and therapies and providing reassurance that the device is delivering therapies appropriately. Shared decision-making processes before device implantation and during ongoing care should include options for sharing CIED data with patients and discussion of potential benefits to understand patients' needs and preferences.
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.