Key result
Active remote monitoring fails to reduce death or unplanned CV hospitalization versus usual care.
Why the study?
Does active remote monitoring reduce death or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization in patients with heart failure and a CIED?
RCT (n=1,650)
Yes
Does active remote monitoring reduce death or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization in patients with heart failure and a CIED?
Effect estimate: HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.87-1.18)
Absolute Event Rate: 42.4% vs 40.8%
p-value: p=0.87
Remote monitoring with weekly downloads does not improve clinical outcomes compared to usual care in patients with heart failure and a CIED.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Active remote monitoring should not supplant usual care in HF patients with CIEDs; challenges prior expectations of benefit from intensified monitoring.
Morgan et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=1,650). Active remote monitoring vs. Usual care was evaluated on 1st event of death from any cause or unplanned hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87-1.18, p=0.87). Active remote monitoring did not significantly reduce death or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization compared to usual care (42.4% vs 40.8%; HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87-1.18; P=0.87).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: