Cited by 32Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationCardiac Health and Mental Health

Patient perspective on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: rationale and design of the REMOTE-CIED study

Open access
Versteeg, H., Pedersen, S. S., Mastenbroek, M. H., Redekop, W. K., Schwab, J. O., Mabo, P., Meine, M.·2014·Netherlands Heart Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Remote patient monitoring is a safe and effective alternative for the in-clinic follow-up of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, evidence on the patient perspective on remote monitoring is scarce and inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the REMOTE-CIED study is to evaluate the influence of remote patient monitoring versus in-clinic follow-up on patient-reported outcomes. Secondary objectives are to: 1) identify subgroups of patients who may not be satisfied with remote monitoring; and 2) investigate the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring. METHODS: The REMOTE-CIED study is an international randomised controlled study that will include 900 consecutive heart failure patients implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compatible with the Boston Scientific LATITUDE® Remote Patient Management system at participating centres in five European countries. Patients will be randomised to remote monitoring or in-clinic follow-up. The In-Clinic group will visit the outpatient clinic every 3-6 months, according to standard practice. The Remote Monitoring group only visits the outpatient clinic at 12 and 24 months post-implantation, other check-ups are performed remotely. Patients are asked to complete questionnaires at five time points during the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The REMOTE-CIED study will provide insight into the patient perspective on remote monitoring in ICD patients, which could help to support patient-centred care in the future.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12471-014-0587-z

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Versteeg, H., Pedersen, S. S., Mastenbroek, M. H., Redekop, W. K., Schwab, J. O., Mabo, P., & Meine, M.
Affiliations
  • Tilburg University (NL)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes (FR)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Corresponding author
Versteeg, H.
Venue
Netherlands Heart Journal
Published
2014-08-19
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
423-428
ISSN
  • 1568-5888 (ISSN-L)
  • 1876-6250
OpenAlex
W2017836622
Cited by
32
References
25
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Netherlands Heart Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Boston Scientific Corporation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
Keywords
remote patient monitoring, cardiac implantable electronic devices, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, heart failure, patient-reported outcomes, patient satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, patient-centered care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review