Symptom-driven remote arrhythmia monitoring for AF showed no difference in disease-specific HRQoL, sense of safety, and physical limitations at 6 months compared to a historical control group.
Observational (n=192)
Does symptom-driven remote arrhythmia monitoring improve patient-reported outcomes in patients with suspected or symptomatic atrial fibrillation?
Symptom-driven remote arrhythmia monitoring for AF does not significantly affect HRQoL and sense of safety compared to standard care, while patient-reported self-management declined.
Abstract Aims There is limited quantitative evidence on the effect of symptom-driven telemonitoring for cardiac arrhythmias on patient-reported outcomes. We evaluated the effect of a symptom-driven remote arrhythmia monitoring programme on the patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL), sense of safety, physical limitations, and self-management. Methods and results This was an observational retrospective longitudinal study of the symptom-driven HartWacht-telemonitoring programme using a remote single-lead electrocardiogram monitoring system. Real-world patient data from participants who were enrolled in the telemonitoring programme for (suspected) symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) between July 2017 and September 2019 were evaluated. Primary outcomes were the patient-reported generic HRQoL, disease-specific HRQoL, sense of safety, physical limitations, and self-management at date of enrolment, 3 months and 6 months of follow-up. Outcomes were compared to a historical control group consisting of AF patients receiving standard care. A total of 109 participants in the HartWacht programme 59 men (54%); mean age 61 ± 11 years; 72% diagnosed AF were included in complete case analysis. There was no significant change in HRQoL and sense of safety during follow-up. A significant improvement in the perceived physical limitations was observed. The level of self-management declined significantly during follow-up. Comparisons to the historic control group (n = 83) showed no difference between the patient-reported disease-specific HRQoL, sense of safety and physical limitations at 6 months of follow-up. Conclusion Symptom-driven remote arrhythmia monitoring for AF does not seem to affect HRQoL and sense of safety, whereas the perceived physical limitations tend to improve. Patient-reported self-management declined during the first 6 months of participation.
Kolk et al. (Tue,) conducted a observational in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (n=192). symptom-driven remote arrhythmia monitoring (HartWacht-telemonitoring programme) vs. standard care (historical control) was evaluated on patient-reported generic HRQoL, disease-specific HRQoL, sense of safety, physical limitations, and self-management. Symptom-driven remote arrhythmia monitoring for AF showed no difference in disease-specific HRQoL, sense of safety, and physical limitations at 6 months compared to a historical control group.