Key result
Smartphone app with Bluetooth feedback improves 4-week dyspnea scores vs conventional devices.
Why the study?
Heart failure guideline recommendations for multidisciplinary care, discharge education, and self-management are challenging to implement in real-world clinical settings.
Does a smartphone app-based intervention with Bluetooth-connected monitoring devices and a feedback system improve dyspnea symptoms in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure?
RCT (n=77)
randomized
Yes
Does a smartphone app-based intervention with Bluetooth-connected monitoring devices and a feedback system improve dyspnea symptoms in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure?
Absolute Event Rate: -1.3% vs -0.3%
p-value: p=.048
A mobile health platform utilizing Bluetooth-connected monitoring devices and a feedback system significantly improved self-reported dyspnea symptoms at 4 weeks in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.
Improves dyspnea symptoms at 4 weeks post-acute HF; extends digital monitoring evidence but leaves event reduction unproven.
BACKGROUND Current heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary approach, discharge education, and self-management for HF. However, the recommendations are challenging to implement in real-world clinical settings. OBJECTIVE We developed a mobile health (mHealth) platform for HF self-care to evaluate whether a smartphone app–based intervention with Bluetooth-connected monitoring devices and a feedback system can help improve HF symptoms. METHODS In this prospective, randomized, multicenter study, we enrolled patients 20 years of age and older, hospitalized for acute HF, and who could use a smartphone from 7 tertiary hospitals in South Korea. In the intervention group (n=39), the apps were automatically paired with Bluetooth-connected monitoring devices. The patients could enter information on vital signs, HF symptoms, diet, medications, and exercise regimen into the app daily and receive feedback or alerts on their input. In the control group (n=38), patients could only enter their blood pressure, heart rate, and weight using conventional, non-Bluetooth devices and could not receive any feedback or alerts from the app. The primary end point was the change in dyspnea symptom scores from baseline to 4 weeks, assessed using a questionnaire. RESULTS At 4 weeks, the change in dyspnea symptom score from baseline was significantly greater in the intervention group than in the control group (mean –1.3, SD 2.1 vs mean –0.3, SD 2.3; P=.048). A significant reduction was found in body water composition from baseline to the final measurement in the intervention group (baseline level mean 7.4, SD 2.5 vs final level mean 6.6, SD 2.5; P=.003). App adherence, which was assessed based on log-in or the percentage of days when symptoms were first observed, was higher in the intervention group than in the control group. Composite end points, including death, rehospitalization, and urgent HF visits, were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS The mobile-based health platform with Bluetooth-connected monitoring devices and a feedback system demonstrated improvement in dyspnea symptoms in patients with HF. This study provides evidence and rationale for implementing mobile app–based self-care strategies and feedback for patients with HF. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05668000; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05668000
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoon et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Acute heart failure (n=77). Smartphone app-based intervention with Bluetooth-connected monitoring devices and a feedback system vs. Conventional, non-Bluetooth devices without feedback or alerts was evaluated on change in dyspnea symptom scores from baseline to 4 weeks (p=.048). A smartphone app-based intervention with Bluetooth devices and feedback significantly improved dyspnea symptom scores at 4 weeks compared to conventional devices (mean change -1.3 vs -0.3; P=.048).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: