Why the study?
HeartLogic predicts heart failure episodes via a remotely monitored index, but the efficacy and safety of pre-emptive heart failure management using this index required assessment.
Does pre-emptive management guided by the HeartLogic index safely reduce unplanned hospitalizations in heart failure patients with implanted devices?
Does pre-emptive management guided by the HeartLogic index safely reduce unplanned hospitalizations in heart failure patients with implanted devices?
Pre-emptive heart failure management using the HeartLogic remote monitoring index is safe and associated with low rates of unplanned hospitalizations.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports feasibility of HeartLogic monitoring in device patients; leaves open whether alert-guided management reduces hospitalizations.
Aims: HeartLogic, an algorithm in implanted devices, predicts heart failure (HF) episodes via a remotely monitored index, aiding proactive congestion treatment to prevent acute decompensation. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of pre-emptive HF management using the HeartLogic index. Methods and results: = 163) had a cardiac resynchronization therapy device. During follow-up, 406 alerts occurred in 158 patients (1.33 alerts/patient-year), resulting in treatment modification in 39.6% of alerts. A total of 24 unplanned HF hospitalizations occurred in 19 (6.1%) patients. Sixteen (66.7%) of those hospitalizations were preceded by a HeartLogic alert, of which 14 (87.5%) triggered a drug modification before hospitalization. Eighteen deaths (5.8%) occurred, including 10 due to cardiovascular causes. An increase in creatinine ≥30% and symptomatic hypotension were reported in two patients. Hyperkalemia and hyponatremia were not observed. Conclusion: Pre-emptive HF management guided by the HeartLogic index was associated with low rates of unplanned hospitalizations and adverse events over a 12-month follow-up period. Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT04619888.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garcia et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: