•Remote patient monitoring (RPM) via external devices has not shown consistent benefit in large randomized trials.•RPM via cardiac implantable electronic devices has not demonstrated improved clinical outcomes in trials. Multisensor algorithms may be better.•RPM via an implantable pulmonary arterial pressure monitor showed improved patient outcomes in a single randomized trial. Further research is underway.•RPM is a tool and not a treatment. How RPM is used is likely important and may explain the variability in trial results. Display omitted After several neutral telehealth trials, the positive findings and subsequent Food and Drug Administration approval of an implantable pulmonary arterial pressure monitor (PAPM) led to renewed interest in remote patient monitoring (RPM). Here we seek to provide contemporary guidance on the appropriate use of RPM technology. Although early trials of external RPM devices suggested benefit, subsequent multicenter trials failed to demonstrate improved outcomes. Monitoring features of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) also did not deliver improved HF outcomes, newer, multisensor algorithms may be better. Earlier technologies using direct pressure measurement via implanted devices failed to show benefit owing to complications or failure. Recently, 1 PAPM showed benefit in a randomized controlled trial. Although not showing cost reduction, cost-benefit analysis of that device suggests that it may meet acceptable standards. Additional research is warranted and is in progress. Consumer-owned electronic devices are becoming more pervasive and hold hope for future benefit in HF management. Practical aspects around RPM technology include targeting of risk populations, having mechanisms to ensure patient adherence to monitoring, and health care team structures that act on the data. Based on available evidence, routine use of external RPM devices is not recommended. Implanted devices that monitor pulmonary arterial pressure and/or other parameters may be beneficial in selected patients or when used in structured programs, but the value of these devices in routine care requires further study. Future research is also warranted to better understand the cost-effectiveness of these devices.