Key result
In heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation, remote patient management reduced the percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions or death.
Why the study?
Heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation have high morbidity and increased hospitalization risk, but the effects of remote patient management in this group remained to be assessed.
Does remote patient management reduce the percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions or death in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=1,537)
randomized
Does remote patient management reduce the percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions or death in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation?
Remote patient management significantly reduces days lost to cardiovascular hospitalization or death specifically in heart failure patients with comorbid atrial fibrillation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
RPM reduced days lost in HF patients with AF; extends TIM-HF2 benefits to this high-risk subgroup.
AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a frequent comorbidity in patients with heart failure (HF). HF patients with AF are characterized by high morbidity and increased risk of hospitalizations. We assessed the effects of remote patient management (RPM) in HF patients with AF compared with usual care (UC) in the TIM-HF2 trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: For this post-hoc analysis, AF status at randomization was assessed in 1537 patients with HF. The primary outcome was the percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions or death of any cause. Around 966 patients had sinus rhythm (SR) and 571 had AF. The analysis showed a significant interaction between heart rhythm and all-cause mortality (P for interaction = 0.001). AF patients had more days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization than SR patients (7.53%, CI 6.01-9.05 vs. 4.90%, CI 3.98-5.82, ratio 1.54, P = 0.004) and higher all-cause mortality (11.9%, CI 9.4-14.9 vs. 8.5%, CI 6.8-10.4, HR 0.66, CI 0.47-0.94, P = 0.029). Patients with AF randomized to RPM had significantly less days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions or all-cause death (5.64%, CI 3.81-7.48) than patients with AF randomized to UC (9.37%, CI 6.98-11.76, ratio 0.60, P = 0.015). No difference was seen in SR patients (UC: 5.25%, CI 3.93-6.58, RPM: 4.55%, CI 3.27-5.83, ratio 0.87, P = 0.452). All-cause mortality in AF patients was reduced with 9.2% (CI 6.1-13.2) in the RPM group compared with 14.5% (CI 10.7-18.1) in the UC group (HR 0.60, CI 0.36-1.00, P = 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with atrial fibrillation at study entry, RPM was associated with increased days alive out of hospital. Our results identify HF patients with atrial fibrillation as a promising target population for RPM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stegmann et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Heart failure with atrial fibrillation (n=1,537). Remote patient management (RPM) vs. Usual care (UC) was evaluated on Percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions or death of any cause (Ratio 0.60, p=0.015). In heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation, remote patient management reduced the percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions or death.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: