Table 1.

Summary of studies included in this systematic review and mata-analysis

Paper	n	Age (mean)	Duration (mean)	LVEF (mean %)	NYHA II and III (%)	Intervention	Outcomes reported
Varma et al (USA)16	1339	64	12	29	87	RM at 6, 9 and 12 months with office visit at 3 and 15 months versus standard of care	In-hospital evaluations of device, mortality and adverse events
Adamson et al (USA)8	400	55	12	23	100	RM with implantable haemodynamic monitor with weekly assessment versus standard of care	HF hospitalisations, emergency department visits, urgent clinic visits
Guédon-Moreau et al (France)17	473	62	24	35	65	RM with review triggered by RM, patient or physician versus standard of care	Mortality, major adverse event including hospitalisation, required intervention, inappropriate ICD therapy, device infection and device failure
Landolina et al (Italy)13	200	68	16	30	88	RM with daily assessment of alerts with 4 monthly office or phone review versus standard of care to reduce unscheduled presentations	Presentation for HF, arrhythmia or device-related events, and healthcare use
Zanaboni et al (Norway)18	200	68	16	30	88	RM to reduce unscheduled presentations and economic analysis	Economic analysis of Landolina et al (Italy)13
Hindricks et al (Germany)12	664	65	12	26	100	RM and centralised assessment of multiple parameters with clinical action at investigator’s discretion versus standard of care	Mortality, HF admission, worsening functional class and quality of life
Lüthje et al (Germany)14	176	66	15	32	86	RM with novel parameters (optivol) and alert management protocol with triggered phone review versus standard of care	Mortality, HF hospitalisation, tachyarrhythmia and device therapy
Böhm et al (Germany)9	1002	66	22.8	27	100	RM clinical alert triggering review, otherwise 6 monthly office/phone review versus standard of care	Mortality, cardiovascular hospitalisation, death from cardiovascular cause and any cause for hospitalisation
Boriani et al (Italy)10	865	66	24	27	100*	RM with alternating 4 monthly reviews in office or with monitoring only versus standard of care	Mortality, cardiovascular or device hospitalisation and economic assessment,
Morgan et al (UK)15	1650	70	34	30	100	RM with weekly data assessment with predefined active follow-up versus standard of care	Mortality, cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular hospitalisation
Hansen et al (Germany)11	210	64	12	28	90	Automated telemetry only with 3 monthly reviews versus telephone or telephone and physical clinic	Quality of life, all-cause mortality, HF hospitalisations, arrhythmias, unscheduled follow ups, appropriate or inappropriate device therapy

HF, heart failure; ICD, implantable cardiac defibrillator; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; RM, remote monitoring.