ReviewClinical cardiology2026
Closed-Loop AI Systems for Arrhythmia Management: Toward Predictive, Personalized, and Safe Cardiac Care.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 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
backgroundCardiac arrhythmias impose a substantial global health and economic burden. Despite advances in electrophysiology and device-based therapy, management still depends on episodic monitoring and delayed decision-making, leaving a persistent gap between detection and intervention that is widest for intermittent and asymptomatic rhythm disturbances.
objectiveThis narrative review traces the shift from open-loop arrhythmia care to closed-loop, AI-assisted systems that couple continuous sensing, automated decision-making, and therapeutic actuation within a feedback-controlled architecture. Its contribution is to reframe arrhythmia AI around the control loop and its safety constraints rather than around detection accuracy alone, addressing a gap left by reviews that focus on classification algorithms or digital-twin modeling.
methodsWe synthesized evidence from landmark device-programming trials, foundational work in control theory and machine learning, and current regulatory guidance to define the principles, technological basis, and system-level requirements of closed-loop arrhythmia care. As a narrative review, it emphasizes control logic, safety constraints, feedback, and clinical integration rather than algorithmic performance in isolation.
resultsDevice-programming trials show that conservative timing, hierarchical escalation, and defined safety boundaries reduce inappropriate therapy and can improve survival, establishing the control principles on which AI systems must build. Machine learning extends these principles to scalable monitoring and adaptive decision-making but introduces concerns of stability, transparency, bias, and performance drift. Safe implementation therefore requires dependable sensing, bounded adaptation, supervisory control, and lifecycle evaluation.
conclusionsClosed-loop AI extends established electrophysiologic control principles rather than replacing clinical judgment. Embedded within transparent, governed architectures with bounded adaptation and human oversight, such systems may improve the personalization, safety, and outcomes of arrhythmia care.
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.