More than 2 decades have passed since the US Food and Drug Administration broadly cleared the implantable loop recorder (ILR) as a safe and efficacious technology indicated for patients who experience transient symptoms suggestive of a cardiac arrhythmia. Remote monitoring of ILRs and other cardiovascular implantable electronic devices has unequivocally and importantly added to the armamentarium we use for the detection of arrhythmias.1 ILRs may provide for a more rapid putative diagnosis in patients being screened for cryptogenic stroke or syncope of uncertain etiology.2,3 While ILR monitoring has experienced geometric growth as a screening modality, it is not without limitations; the subcutaneous deployment of these devices makes them prone to spurious alert transmissions. False-positive detections of bradycardia or asystole from 1 multicenter cohort study occurred in 27.8% and 76.8% of episodes, respectively, attributable to undersensing and/or ectopy detection, and false-positive alert rates of atrial fibrillation (AF) occurred in 74.2% due to oversensing, noise artifact, or frequent ectopy.4 Despite these recognized limitations, the REVEAL AF study demonstrated a nearly 30% incidence of previously unappreciated AF (defined as greater than 6 minutes in duration) identified in patients thought to be at high risk of AF and stroke.5 The LOOP study extended upon these observations. This randomized clinical trial for stroke prevention in patients with previously unrecognized AF and high-risk features (age 70 years or older with at least 1 additional CHA2DS2-VASc score of hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, or previous stroke), demonstrated a 3-fold increase in AF detection by ILR prompting anticoagulation initiation, albeit without any significant reduction in subsequent stroke.6