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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.1093/europace/eun203PMC PMC2552405
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

Overview

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

Figures

Figure 1 Medtronic CareLink remote-monitoring system. Adapted from Schoenfeld et al.6 The system consists of a portable patient monitor, central database in secure server, and a password-protected website, where clinician can view and analyse patient device data.
Figure 1 Medtronic CareLink remote-monitoring system. Adapted from Schoenfeld et al.6 The system consists of a portable patient monitor, central database in secure server, and a password-protected website, where clinician can view and analyse patient device data.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Patient's satisfaction with the use of the system. Answers are represented at a scale from zero to four. Clarity of written instructions: 4 = very clear, 3 = clear, 2 = unclear, 1 = very unclear; setup of CareLink monitor/positioning of the antenna/overall judgement of monitor: 4 = very easy, 3 = easy, 2 = difficult, 1 = very difficult; time needed for transmission: 4 = very short, 3 = short, 2 = long, 1 = very long.
Figure 2 Patient's satisfaction with the use of the system. Answers are represented at a scale from zero to four. Clarity of written instructions: 4 = very clear, 3 = clear, 2 = unclear, 1 = very unclear; setup of CareLink monitor/positioning of the antenna/overall judgement of monitor: 4 = very easy, 3 = easy, 2 = difficult, 1 = very difficult; time needed for transmission: 4 = very short, 3 = short, 2 = long, 1 = very long.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Physician satisfaction with the use of the system. Answers are represented at a scale from zero to four. Access to web data/Navigation CareLink website: 4 = very easy, 3 = easy, 2 = difficult, 1 = very difficult; overall satisfaction about CareLink monitor: 4 = very satisfied, 3 = satisfied, 2 = unsatisfied, 1 = very unsatisfied.
Figure 3 Physician satisfaction with the use of the system. Answers are represented at a scale from zero to four. Access to web data/Navigation CareLink website: 4 = very easy, 3 = easy, 2 = difficult, 1 = very difficult; overall satisfaction about CareLink monitor: 4 = very satisfied, 3 = satisfied, 2 = unsatisfied, 1 = very unsatisfied.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Time burden for the hospital staff. The graph represents the mean time in minutes ± SD that is needed for the clinician and nurse to do the follow-up of a patient in the office vs. the time needed to evaluate a transmission.
Figure 4 Time burden for the hospital staff. The graph represents the mean time in minutes ± SD that is needed for the clinician and nurse to do the follow-up of a patient in the office vs. the time needed to evaluate a transmission.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Interval (V–V) plot (A) and intracardiac ECG (B) obtained during an unscheduled data transmission. The patient had occasional palpitation about once a month. The remote data transmission revealed a fast VT episode that was appropriately treated by the device with single burst pace therapy and there were no need for an in-office visit.
Figure 5 Interval (V–V) plot (A) and intracardiac ECG (B) obtained during an unscheduled data transmission. The patient had occasional palpitation about once a month. The remote data transmission revealed a fast VT episode that was appropriately treated by the device with single burst pace therapy and there were no need for an in-office visit.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 2007, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 30, s2
  2. 2006, 33, 241

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

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.
ORCID
Raatikainen, M.J. P.
Venue
Europace
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2008-10-01
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
1145-1151
ISSN
  • 1099-5129 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2092
DOI
10.1093/europace/eun203
PMC
PMC2552405
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