Key result
Remote patient monitoring significantly reduced the number of hospitalizations for heart failure compared to usual care (IRR 0.77; 95% CI 0.65-0.91; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does remote patient monitoring improve cost-effectiveness and reduce hospitalizations in patients with heart failure compared to usual care?
Population
5,715 patients with heart failure from 21 randomized controlled trials
Comparison
Remote patient monitoring (RPM) vs Usual care
Design
Meta-analysis
Authors
Loading...
Supports routine remote monitoring in HF care to reduce hospitalizations; confirms benefit in Level 1 meta-analysis.
Meta-Analysis (n=5,715)
Yes
Does remote patient monitoring improve cost-effectiveness and reduce hospitalizations in patients with heart failure compared to usual care?
Relative Risk: 0.77 (95% CI 0.65–0.91)
p-value: p=< 0.001
Remote patient monitoring in heart failure is a dominant technology over standard care, significantly reducing hospitalizations while providing cost savings and quality-adjusted life year gains.
Klersy et al. (2010) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure (n=5,715). Remote patient monitoring vs. Usual care was evaluated on Number of hospitalizations for heart failure (IRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.91, p=< 0.001). Remote patient monitoring significantly reduced the number of hospitalizations for heart failure compared to usual care (IRR 0.77; 95% CI 0.65-0.91; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: