ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
A randomized controlled trial of remote monitoring for cardiac implantable loop recorders: stay-away trial.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Remote monitoring for implantable loop recorders: re-evaluating diagnostic speed, costs, and methodological limitations. Re: Fitzgerald JL, May AN, Baker D, et al. A randomized controlled trial of remote monitoring for cardiac implantable loop recorders: stay-away trial. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2026 [1].Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe benefits of remote monitoring (RM) for pacemakers and defibrillators have been established. It has not been shown that these benefits apply to implantable loop recorders (ILRs). We aimed to investigate the effect of RM on patient outcomes, time spent, and cost during follow-up of ILRs.
methodsWe conducted a multi-centre, randomized, controlled, open-label trial of RM versus office-based follow-up for ILRs. At implant, patients were randomized to RM only, or office visits at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months (no-RM). Primary efficacy endpoints were: (1) time from event to diagnosis, (2) number of related hospital presentations. Secondary endpoints were time spent on follow-up, satisfaction, and cost.
resultsOne hundred consecutively referred patients, aged 61 ± 18yrs, 53% male, were recruited between April 2018 and September 2019 (pre-COVID pandemic). Follow-up was 12 months. Patients with RM versus no-RM had less time from event to diagnosis (RM 0(0-0) days, no-RM 40(33-42) days, P < 0.001), fewer arrhythmia-related hospital presentations (RM 0.7 ± 1.1, no-RM 2.8 ± 2.6, P < 0.019), and lower (better) satisfaction survey scores (RM 13 ± 4, no-RM 16 ± 5; P = 0.041). Follow-up clinician time spent (RM 33 ± 29 min, no-RM 29 ± 26 min, P = 0.063) and cost of follow up (RM $803, no-RM $1,090; P = 0.347) were not different.
conclusionsIn patients with ILRs randomized to receive RM, there was less time from event to diagnosis, there were fewer hospital and clinic presentations, and improved patient satisfaction. RM did not take more time and was cost effective in the Australian health care system. This study provides support for RM of ILRs. REGISTRATION: ACTRN12618001359224.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42467309What 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.