CVRS Co-founder Amber Seiler shares insights into the abstract “Unscheduled Transmission Burden and Actionable Yield Across Alert Types in a Large Remote Monitoring Population,” presented at HRS (Heart Rhythm Society) 2026.
Are certain transmissions more likely to be clinically meaningful than others? The answer this study found was yes.
Looking at over 15,000 transmissions from more than 6,000 patients in a 12-month period, it was found that only 15% of unscheduled transmissions were clinically meaningful. These clinically meaningful transmissions, all unscheduled, varied greatly by alert type. AFIB and VT/VF alerts were the most likely to be clinically actionable, while False ILRs and no device-defined alerts contributed disproportionately to the non-actionable workload.
Each type of alert that produced noise in the form of unscheduled transmissions also carried important, actionable items. There’s no single category that can be disregarded when it comes to alert management. But, knowing what alerts are most likely to produce non-actionable transmissions can help us reprogram efficiently, and cut down on the noise.
Unscheduled Transmission Burden and Actionable Yield Across Alert Types in a Large Remote Monitoring Population:
Amber Seiler
At Heart Rhythm this year in Chicago, we had the opportunity to present a couple of different abstracts that we’re really excited about. One of them was looking at whether or not unscheduled transmissions that came in were clinically meaningful, and trying to determine if certain types of transmissions were more likely to be clinically meaningful than others.
We partnered with Novant Health in Winston Salem to do this study. We looked at 12 months of data, analyzed over 15,000 transmissions for over 6,000 patients, and what we found was that only 15% of unscheduled transmissions were clinically meaningful. And for us, that meant that it met the clinic’s triage criteria for escalation.
This is really important, because this includes transmissions like alerts, clinic requested transmissions, activation transmissions, patient initiated transmissions – all of these rolled into this big bucket of unscheduled transmissions. And one of the things that we identified was that there are actionable transmissions in each of those categories, and so it’s not like you can throw one bucket of work out the window and say that we don’t need to look at it. All of those categories did have transmissions that had clinical value, and were clinically meaningful.
There were, though, a few alert types that stood out to be more likely to be clinically meaningful for patients, and for their care. And those alert types were obviously VT and VF, atrial fibrillation – those were just a couple of the ones that stood out as the ones most likely to have an impact on patient care.
We would love to talk with you more about these abstracts, or have an opportunity to connect about CV Remote and the work that we’re doing to try to reduce non-actionable remotes in our clinics today. Thanks so much.
At CV Remote Solutions, we work with clinics to standardize workflows, optimize alert programming, and build the operational layer that makes remote monitoring sustainable. Schedule a consultation with a clinician here.