Why the study?
Remote patient monitoring of heart failure patients has the potential to reduce healthcare resource use and costs, but current evidence has been inconclusive.
Does remote patient monitoring reduce healthcare costs and improve QALYs in heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator compared to in-clinic follow-up?
Does remote patient monitoring reduce healthcare costs and improve QALYs in heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator compared to in-clinic follow-up?
Remote patient monitoring for heart failure patients with ICDs reduces medical resource use and travel time, with potential cost savings depending on the specific costs of the remote monitoring system.
May reduce costs and travel time for HF-ICD patients; leaves open routine adoption pending confirmatory trials.
INTRODUCTION: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) of heart failure patients has the potential to reduce healthcare resource use and costs, but current evidence has been inconclusive. This study aims assess the impact of RPM of heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator on medical resource use, direct medical costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and travel time of patients, and to estimate its commercial headroom in the Netherlands and Germany. METHODS: Data from the REMOTE-CIED randomized controlled trial were used to calculate differences in length of hospital stay, outpatient clinic visits, telephone consults, emergency room visits, and travel time between patients on in-clinic follow-up and RPM in the Netherlands, Germany, and France. Incremental cardiac-related healthcare costs and QALYs were calculated and used to calculate the commercial headroom of RPM in the Netherlands and Germany. The impact of imputation, parameter, and case-mix uncertainty on these outcomes was explored using probabilistic analysis. RESULTS: Length of hospitalization, number of unscheduled admissions, and number of outpatient visits were lower in the remote monitoring group in all three countries. Number of hospital admissions was higher, and number of calls was lower in the Netherlands and Germany but not in France. Costs were lower in both the Netherlands (-€1041, 95% confidence interval (CI): -€3308, €1005) and Germany (-€2865, 95% CI: -€7619, €1105), while incremental effectiveness differed: -0.003 (95% CI: -0.114, 0.107) QALY in the Netherlands and +0.086 (95% CI: -0.083, 0.256) in Germany. Commercial headroom was estimated at €881 (95% CI: -€5430, €7208) in the Netherlands and €5005 (95% CI: -€1339, €11,960) in Germany. DISCUSSION: RPM was found to result in reduced medical resource use and travel time. Whether it is cost saving or cost effective strongly depends on the costs of remote monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND TRIAL REGISTER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01691586.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Graaf et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: