Table 2.

Summary of the main results.

Study			Country		Design		Time horizon		CIEDa type		Effect		Cost-effectiveness in original currency and in reference year (in US $, 2019)		Conclusion
Pacemaker studies
	Poniente [28]	Spain		Non-RCTb		5 years		Pacemaker		QALYc difference: 0.27		ICERd: €301.16 per QALY (US $270.09 per QALY)		Cost-effective
	Nordland [26]	Norway		RCT		1 year		Pacemaker		QALY difference: 0.03		ICER: €53,345 per QALY (US $59.746 per QALY)		Not cost-effective
	SAVE-HMe trial [35]	Austria		RCT		17 months		Pacemaker		No adverse effects difference		N/Af		Cost-saving
	Dario et al [37], 2016	Italy		Non-RCT		1 year		Pacemaker		Average time reduction to treat patients (−4.1 minutes/follow-up)		N/A		Cost-saving
ICDg or CRT-Dh studies
	PREDICT RM [27]	United States		Real-world		Lifelong		ICD		QALY difference: 0.64		ICER: US $10,752 per QALY (US $12,069 per QALY)		Cost-effective
	TARIFFi [30]	Italy		Non-RCT		12 months		ICD or CRT-D		QALY difference: 0.02		Not calculated because QALY difference was not significant (P=.53)		Cost-saving
	EVOLVOj [11]	Italy		RCT		16 months		ICD or CRT-D		QALY difference: 0.066k (P=.03)		Cost-utility ratio <0		Dominant
	MORE-CAREl [29]	Europe and Israel		RCT		2 years		CRT-D		QOLm difference:−1		N/A		Cost-saving
	Burri et al [31], 2013	United Kingdom		Systematic review data		10 years		ICD or CRT-D		Inappropriate shocks: −51%; battery exhaustion: −7%		N/A		Cost-saving
	Raatikainen et al [32], 2008	Finland		Non-RCT		18 months		ICD		Time burden for patients of −175 minutes and physician of −17 minutes/patient/follow-up		N/A		Cost-effective
	Al-Khatib et al [33], 2009	United States		RCT		1 year		ICD or CRT-D		EuroQoL difference: 25%; no difference in satisfaction and mortality		N/A		Cost-saving
	CONNECTn [8]	United States		RCT		15 months		ICD or CRT-D		Time from clinical event to clinical decision: 17.4 daysk (P<.001)		N/A		Cost-saving
	ECOSTo [34]	France		RCT		27 months		ICD		Physical, psychological, and SF-36p QOL scores: not significant		N/A		Cost-saving
	EuroEcoq [13]	Belgium, Finland, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, and the Netherlands		RCT		2 years		ICD or CRT-D		SF-36 QOL score: not significant		N/A		Cost-saving
	SAVE-HM trial [35]	Austria		RCT		26 months		ICD		No adverse effects difference		N/A		Cost-saving
	Chew et al [36], 2022	Canada		Non-RCT		5 years		ICD or CRT-D		Risk of death (hazard ratio): 0.43k (P<.001)		N/A		Cost-saving
	Dario et al [37], 2016	Italy		Non-RCT		1 year		ICD		Average time reduction to treat patient (−13.7 minute/follow-up)		N/A		Cost-saving

^aCIED: cardiac implantable electronic device.

^bRCT: randomized controlled trial.

^cQALY: quality-adjusted life year.

^dICER: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

^eSAVE-HM: Socio-Economic Effects and Cost Saving Potential of Remote Patient Monitoring.

^fN/A: not applicable.

^gICD: implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

^hCRT-D: cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator.

ⁱTARIFF: Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-Up.

^jEVOLVO: Evolution of Management Strategies of Heart Failure Patients With Implantable Defibrillators.

^kThe values are statistically significant.

^lMORE-CARE: Monitoring Resynchronization Devices and Cardiac Patients.

^mQOL: quality of life.

ⁿCONNECT: Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision.

^oECOST: Effectiveness and Cost of ICD Follow-Up Schedule With Telecardiology.

^pSF-36: The 36-Item Short Form Survey.

^qEuroEco: European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients.