Haemodynamic-guided remote monitoring for heart failure reduced the composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalizations compared to standard therapy (IRR 0.79; 95% CI 0.70-0.89).
Meta-Analysis (n=4,347)
Do device-based remote monitoring strategies for congestion-guided management reduce the composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalizations in patients with heart failure?
Haemodynamic-guided remote monitoring significantly reduces the composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalizations in heart failure patients compared to standard therapy, whereas impedance-guided monitoring does not.
Effect estimate: IRR 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.89)
AIMS: Pre-clinical congestion markers of worsening heart failure (HF) can be monitored by devices and may support the management of patients with HF. We aimed to assess whether congestion-guided HF management according to device-based remote monitoring strategies is more effective than standard therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: A comprehensive literature research for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing device-based remote monitoring strategies for congestion-guided HF management versus standard therapy was performed on PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Poisson regression model with random study effects. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalizations. Secondary endpoints included the individual components of the primary outcome. A total of 4347 patients from eight RCTs were included. Findings varied according to the type of parameters monitored. Compared with standard therapy, haemodynamic-guided strategy (4 trials, 2224 patients, 12-month follow-up) reduced the risk of the primary composite outcome (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.89) and HF hospitalizations (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86), without a significant impact on all-cause death (IRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72-1.21). In contrast, impedance-guided strategy (4 trials, 2123 patients, 19-month follow-up) did not provide significant benefits. CONCLUSION: Haemodynamic-guided HF management is associated with better clinical outcomes as compared to standard clinical care.
Zito et al. (Tue,) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure (n=4,347). Device-based remote monitoring strategies (haemodynamic-guided and impedance-guided) vs. Standard therapy was evaluated on Composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalizations (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.89). Haemodynamic-guided remote monitoring for heart failure reduced the composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalizations compared to standard therapy (IRR 0.79; 95% CI 0.70-0.89).