Cited by 189Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationECG Monitoring and Analysis

Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: a safe, time-saving, and cost-effective means for follow-up

Open access
Raatikainen, M.J. P., Uusimaa, P., van Ginneken, M. M.E., Janssen, J. P.G., Linnaluoto, M.·2008·Europace

Abstract

AIMS: The purpose of this prospective study was to investigate whether internet-based remote monitoring offers a safe, practical, and cost-effective alternative to the in-office follow-up visits of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-one patients (62 +/- 10 years, range 41-76, 83% male) with previously implanted ICD were followed for 9 months. One-hundred and nineteen scheduled and 18 unscheduled data transmissions were performed. There were no device-related adverse events. Over 90% of the patients found the system easy to use. Physicians reported the system as being 'very easy' or 'easy' to use and found the data comparable to traditional device interrogation in 99% of the cases. They were able to address all unscheduled data transmissions remotely. Compared with the in-office visits, remote monitoring required less time from patients (6.9 +/- 5.0 vs. 182 +/- 148 min, P < 0.001) and physicians (8.4 +/- 4.5 vs. 25.8 +/- 17.0 min, P < 0.001) to complete the follow-up. Substitution of two routine in-office visits during the study by remote monitoring reduced the overall cost of routine ICD follow-up by 524 euro per patient (41%). CONCLUSION: Remote monitoring offers a safe, feasible, time-saving, and cost-effective solution to ICD follow-up.

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 · 10.1093/europace/eun203

Cites

17 of 17 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?

  • Surveys reveal that patients prefer home to in-office monitoring, and physicians find that the systems are user friendly.

    “In general, surveys reveal that patients prefer home to in-office monitoring, and physicians find that the systems are user friendly.52,53”

    From Managing with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (2013) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Results section ('Ease of use and satisfaction'; page unavailable) reports that physicians found website access easy or very easy for 97% of transmissions and navigation very easy. The Methods section says patients were asked whether they preferred remote monitoring or in-office visits, but the available Results passage does not report which they preferred. This source therefore supports the physician-usability claim, not the claimed patient preference. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Data on the cost benefits of remote monitoring are not definitive to date.

    “Data on the cost benefits of remote monitoring are not definitive to date.52,56”

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
Raatikainen, M. J. P., Uusimaa, P., van Ginneken, M. M. E., Janssen, J. P. G., & Linnaluoto, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Oulu (FI)
  • Medtronic (Netherlands) (NL)
Corresponding author
Raatikainen, M.J. P.
Venue
Europace
Published
2008-10-01
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
1145-1151
ISSN
  • 1099-5129 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2092
OpenAlex
W2129785807
Cited by
189
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 17
FWCI
12.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • EP Europace (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
Keywords
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, remote monitoring, device interrogation, cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Workload, Death, Sudden, Cardiac, Health Care Costs, Defibrillators, Implantable, Remote Consultation, Internet

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