Key result
Telemonitoring of patients 12 months after pacemaker implantation resulted in similar health-related quality of life compared to standard hospital monitoring (MLHF score 9.17 vs 10.78, p=0.45).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to analyze the health-related quality of life of patients followed up using remote device monitoring compared to standard outpatient visits 12 months after pacemaker implantation.
Does a remote device-monitoring system improve health-related quality of life in patients 12 months after pacemaker implantation compared to standard outpatient visits?
RCT (n=50)
Open-label
Randomly allocated
No
Does a remote device-monitoring system improve health-related quality of life in patients 12 months after pacemaker implantation compared to standard outpatient visits?
Telemonitoring of pacemaker patients is an equally effective alternative to conventional hospital follow-up, providing similar improvements in quality of life and comparable clinical outcomes at 12 months.
Telemonitoring provides a comparable alternative to in-person pacemaker follow-up; confirms similar HRQoL in this RCT.
The purpose of this study was to analyse the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients followed up using a remote device-monitoring system (TM) compared to patients followed up through standard outpatient visits (HM), 12 months after the implantation of a pacemaker. This was a trial design that used the EuroQol-5D Questionnaire and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF). The HRQoL of a cohort of 50 consecutive patients randomly allocated to one of the two follow-up modalities was measured at baseline and then during follow-up, 12 months after the pacemaker implantation. Eventually, 23 patients were followed-up through standard outpatient visits, while 23 used a remote monitoring system. Results: The baseline clinical characteristics and health-related quality of life of the patients from both groups were observed to be statistically similar. Twelve months after the pacemaker implantation, both groups showed statistically significant improvements in the baseline parameters based on the MLHF. The patients followed up through hospital visits showed a greater increase in MLHF-HRQoL after 12 months, although the increase was not significantly greater than that of the TM group. Furthermore, the frequencies of emergency visits and re-hospitalisations did not differ between the groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
López‐Liria et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Pacemaker implantation (n=50). Remote device-monitoring system (Telemonitoring) vs. Standard outpatient visits (Hospital monitoring) was evaluated on Health-related quality of life (MLHF score) at 12 months (p=0.45). Telemonitoring of patients 12 months after pacemaker implantation resulted in similar health-related quality of life compared to standard hospital monitoring (MLHF score 9.17 vs 10.78, p=0.45).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: