Why the study?
A focus on post-pandemic remote monitoring of patients with heart failure is needed to determine effectiveness given social changes and technological advances since the pandemic.
Does remote monitoring using non-implantable devices improve clinical outcomes and adherence in patients with heart failure?
Does remote monitoring using non-implantable devices improve clinical outcomes and adherence in patients with heart failure?
Post-pandemic research consistently supports the effectiveness of non-implantable remote monitoring in improving outcomes such as hospitalization and adherence for heart failure patients.
Supports integration of non-implantable remote monitoring into heart failure care; confirms consistent benefits across hospitalization, mortality, and adherence.
Background and Objectives: Although the effectiveness of remote monitoring (RM) has been extensively studied, a focus on the post-pandemic time period is needed given the social changes and technology advances since this global event occurred. Aim: The present paper responds to this need by reviewing post-pandemic research, to determine if RM of patients with heart failure (HF) using non-implantable devices represents an effective strategy. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and PMC, and the number of articles included was 19. Results: A total of 3,031 patients participated in the 19 studies in this review, who had HF (NYHA class I-IV). Most frequent outcomes of interest were: rates of hospitalization (13 studies), death (5 studies), adherence to medications / healthy behaviors (4 studies), associated costs (4 studies), symptom intensity or frequency (3 studies), etc. The studies included in this review unanimously presented significant findings in favor of RM. Conclusion: The post-pandemic research targeting RM of patients with HF presents more homogenous results to support this type of intervention, as compared to the heterogeneity of the pre-pandemic research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Teleanu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: