Why the study?
Does automatic remote monitoring improve safety and allow more rapid detection of actionable events compared with conventional monitoring in patients with implantable electronic cardiac devices?
Does automatic remote monitoring improve safety and allow more rapid detection of actionable events compared with conventional monitoring in patients with implantable electronic cardiac devices?
Automatic remote monitoring is safe and enables faster detection of actionable events than conventional monitoring for patients with implantable electronic cardiac devices.
Supports earlier intervention via remote monitoring in CIED patients; leaves open outcome benefits pending randomized trials.
HM is safe and allows more rapid detection of actionable events compared with conventional monitoring in patients with implantable electronic cardiac devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Varma et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: