− HEALTH We are the last generation that will influence what wellbeing means before AI systems optimize that definitio…− HEALTH Abstract There is much discussion of the false outputs that generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Claude, Ge…± SCIENCE This article presents a Delphi consensus developed by a panel of editors-in-chief of anaesthesiology and pain…+ EDUCATION The study investigated how innovative, AI-supported teaching methods relate to the mathematics problem-solvin…+ EDUCATION As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into higher education, understanding how students engage wit…+ HEALTH In the complex and multidimensional field of medicine, multimodal data are prevalent and crucial for informed…± SCIENCE This paper explores the evolution of geoscientific inquiry, tracing the progression from traditional physics-…− POLICY This paper conducts a systematic review and interdisciplinary analysis of the ethical challenges of generativ…
TruaceTracing the truth around AIMonday, July 20, 2026
Subscribe
Health·G Space·Model-prefilled gain·Published 2026-07-20

Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Insertable Cardiac Monitors on Device Clinic Workflow and Resource Utilization

BACKGROUND: Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) are essential for managing arrhythmias but often generate large numbers of transmissions and false alerts. Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) as part of the ICM workflow can reduce this burden. However, its impact on clinic workflow and resource utilization must be better understood. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the impact of AI-enhanced ICMs on clinic workflow and resource utilization. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using…

TRV-2026-0299Peer-reviewedPermanent record — cite & verify
Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Insertable Cardiac Monitors on Device Clinic Workflow and Resource Utilization

"Cardiac operating room" by Ruhrfisch is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/.

The quick read

By March 18, 2025, researchers reported a cross-sectional analysis of 19,320 patients monitored with insertable cardiac monitors across 140 U.S. device clinics from July 2022 to April 2024. Clinics using AI-enhanced ICMs averaged 2,110 nonactionable alerts per year per 600 patients compared with 5,078 for non-AI-enhanced devices, with associated reductions in technician review time and projected costs.

The reduction matters because ICMs are essential for managing arrhythmias but often generate large numbers of transmissions and false alerts that burden device clinics. While the data suggest AI filtering can improve health care efficiency, it remains uncertain whether savings generalize beyond the Octagos Health network, whether clinical outcomes or missed true events differ, and how costs behave outside the extrapolated 600-patient model.

Main points
  • Nonactionable alerts (NAAs) were defined as false or repetitive alerts transmitted on the remote monitoring platforms but dismissed by device technicians and not forwarded to clinicians for review.
  • Study population was 19,320 patients with mean age 69 ± 13.5 years and 47.3% male, with 68% using non-AI-enhanced ICMs and 32% using AI-enhanced ICMs.
  • Analysis used real-world deidentified remote monitoring data from 140 U.S. device clinics collected between July 2022 and April 2024 via Octagos Health.
Gain

AI-enhanced insertable cardiac monitors reduced nonactionable alerts from 5,078 to 2,110 per year for a 600-patient clinic, saving 559 staffing hours and $29,470 annually compared to non-AI monitors.

The rundown

The analysis compared alert volumes by device type. Non-AI-enhanced ICMs generated a mean annual volume of 5,078 NAAs per 600-patient clinic versus 2,110 for AI-enhanced ICMs. The difference translated to 956 vs 397 staffing hours for triage.

NAAs were operationally defined as transmissions dismissed by device technicians and not forwarded to clinicians, separating technical noise from clinically actionable review. The study period covered July 2022 to April 2024 across a network of 140 U.S. clinics.

Sources

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

The debate