Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Diagnostics, Monitoring, and Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) such as pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) devices are generating unprecedented volumes of data in both inpatient and remote settings. Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques are increasingly being applied to enhance the management of these devices and the patients who rely on them. Recent advances demonstrate that machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) can improve diagnostic capabilities (for example, by detecting arrhythmias and predicting clinical events), streamline remote monitoring workflows, and optimise device-based therapies. Key applications include AI-driven algorithms that accurately detect true arrhythmias while filtering out false alerts from pacemakers and implantable monitors, neural network models that predict ventricular arrhythmias weeks before ICD shocks, and personalised models that forecast which heart failure patients will respond to CRT. Moreover, novel approaches such as natural language processing (NLP) and reinforcement learning are being explored to integrate diverse data sources and to enable devices to self-adjust their programming. This narrative review summarises the major applications of AI in the CIED domain-diagnostics, remote monitoring, and therapy optimisation-with an emphasis on the recent literature over the past five years. The review highlights important studies and randomised trials in each area, discusses the variety of AI techniques employed, and outlines future directions and challenges (including data standardisation, validation in clinical trials, and regulatory considerations) for translating these innovations into routine clinical care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".