A systematic review of 32 trials involving 32,246 participants found that digital biomarkers show potential clinical utility in cardiovascular conditions, though implementation remains challenging.
Systematic Review (n=32,246)
Digital biomarkers show potential clinical utility in cardiovascular medicine, particularly in heart failure and electrophysiology, though significant implementation, validation, and cost-effectiveness challenges remain.
Abstract Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, imposing a substantial patient burden. Digital biomarkers derived from digital health technologies enable quantifiable, near-continuous, real-world capture of pathophysiological signals and are increasingly used across cardiovascular medicine. Their growth is often supported by big data analytics, artificial intelligence and connected sensors within the Internet of Things. This scientific statement systematically reviews digital biomarkers, their clinical utility across the cardiovascular care continuum, and summarizes major methodological and implementation challenges. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus for phase III–IV cardiovascular trials published between 1 January 2019 and 1 August 2024 that collected digital biomarkers. We identified 541 records and included 32 trials (40 reports) enrolling 32 246 participants (44.71% women; mean age 66.2 ± 11.0 years). Heart failure was the most frequent target condition (16 trials, 50%), followed by cardiac implantable electronic devices trials (12 trials, 38%). Digital biomarkers included cardiac rhythm and heart rate, blood pressure, body weight, impedance-based measures, haemodynamic pressures, and physical activity and sleep patterns captured using diverse sensor technologies. Methodological quality was good (modal quality score 5; range 3–7), although most trials were unblinded. Current studies suggest potential clinical utility in selected cardiovascular conditions. Implementation remains challenging because of measurement variability, privacy and regulatory requirements, affordability and reimbursement barriers and inequities in access. Robust validation and outcome- and cost-effectiveness evidence are still needed. Registration number: CRD42024573879.
Corredoira et al. (Tue,) conducted a systematic review in Cardiovascular disease (n=32,246). Digital biomarkers was evaluated. A systematic review of 32 trials involving 32,246 participants found that digital biomarkers show potential clinical utility in cardiovascular conditions, though implementation remains challenging.