Why the study?
Telemedicine in heart failure is rapidly evolving to improve and individualise care and reduce costs, warranting a critical, updated review of current evidence from trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews.
Does telemedicine improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs in patients with heart failure?
Does telemedicine improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs in patients with heart failure?
Telemedicine in heart failure shows mixed results with the most convincing evidence for invasive hemodynamic monitoring, highlighting the need for better standardization and integration into standard care.
CardioMEMS has strongest evidence for heart failure telemonitoring; supports targeted use while other strategies need further validation.
Telemedicine in chronic diseases like heart failure is rapidly evolving and has two important goals: improving and individualising care as well as reducing costs. In this paper, we provide a critical and an updated review of the current evidence by discussing the most important trials, meta-analyses and systematic reviews. So far, evidence for the CardioMEMS device is most convincing. Other trials regarding invasive and non-invasive telemonitoring and telephone support show divergent results, but several meta-analyses and systematic reviews uniformly reported a beneficial effect. Voice-over systems and ECG monitoring had neutral results. Lack of direct comparison between different modalities makes it impossible to determine the most effective method. Dutch studies showed predominantly non-significant results, mainly due to underpowered studies or because of a high standard of usual care. There are no conclusive results on cost-effectiveness of telemedicine because of the above shortcomings. The adherence of elderly patients was good in the trials, being essential for the compliance of telemedicine in the entire heart failure population. In the future perspective, telemedicine should be better standardised and evolve to be more than an addition to standard care to improve care and reduce costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eurlings et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: