Key result
The afterAMI mobile application did not significantly reduce rehospitalizations or urgent outpatient visits at 6 months compared to standard rehabilitation alone (8% vs 27%; p=0.064).
Why the study?
Data from prospective, randomized trials evaluating mobile application digital solutions in cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction are scarce.
Does a mobile application (afterAMI) added to standard rehabilitation reduce rehospitalizations and/or urgent outpatient visits in patients after myocardial infarction?
RCT (n=100)
randomized
Does a mobile application (afterAMI) added to standard rehabilitation reduce rehospitalizations and/or urgent outpatient visits in patients after myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 8% vs 27%
p-value: p=0.064
A mobile app added to standard cardiac rehabilitation post-MI did not significantly reduce 6-month rehospitalizations or urgent visits, though it improved NT-proBNP levels and patient knowledge.
Does not support afterAMI integration into post-MI rehab; challenges mHealth efficacy for reducing rehospitalizations.
Cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction is crucial and improves patients’ prognosis. It aims to optimize cardiovascular risk factors’ control. Providing additional support via mobile applications has been previously suggested. However, data from prospective, randomized trials evaluating digital solutions are scarce. In this study, we aimed to evaluate a mobile application—afterAMI—in the clinical setting and to investigate the impact of a digitally-supported model of care in comparison with standard rehabilitation. A total of 100 patients after myocardial infarction were enrolled. Patients were randomized into groups with either a rehabilitation program and access to afterAMI or standard rehabilitation alone. The primary endpoint was rehospitalizations and/or urgent outpatient visits after 6 months. Cardiovascular risk factors’ control was also analyzed. Median age was 61 years; 65% of the participants were male. This study failed to limit the number of primary endpoint events (8% with app vs. 27% without app; p = 0.064). However, patients in the interventional group had lower NT-proBNP levels (p = 0.0231) and better knowledge regarding cardiovascular disease risk factors (p = 0.0009), despite no differences at baseline. This study showcases how a telemedical tool can be used in the clinical setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krzowski et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in myocardial infarction (n=100). afterAMI mobile application vs. standard rehabilitation alone was evaluated on rehospitalizations and/or urgent outpatient visits after 6 months (p=0.064). The afterAMI mobile application did not significantly reduce rehospitalizations or urgent outpatient visits at 6 months compared to standard rehabilitation alone (8% vs 27%; p=0.064).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: