Letter to the editor to update the article "Remote monitoring for heart failure using implantable devices: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials".

Our recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of heart failure (HF) remote monitoring using implantable devices (Hajduczok et al. in HF Reviews 1-20, 1) has been updated to reflected new data from the GUIDE-HF trial (Lindenfeld et al. in Lancet 398(10304):991-1001, 2). Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed to determine the effectiveness of implantable remote monitoring on the improvement of outcomes in HF patients. With the inclusion of the data from 1000 patients followed for 12 months in GUIDE-HF, our conclusions remain unchanged: Compared to standard of care, remote monitoring using implantable devices did not reduce mortality, CV, or HF hospitalizations. However, right ventricular/pulmonary pressure monitoring may reduce HF hospitalizations.

Remote monitoring for heart failure using implantable devices: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials.

In heart failure (HF) patients, remote monitoring using implantable devices may be used to predict and reduce HF exacerbations and mortality. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed to determine the effectiveness of implantable remote monitoring on the improvement of outcomes in HF patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs testing remote monitoring versus standard of care for management of HF patients was performed. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and a composite of cardiovascular (CV) and HF hospitalizations. Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A secondary analysis tested for heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) comparing right ventricular/pulmonary pressure monitoring versus impedance-based monitoring on hospitalization. A regression analysis was performed using the mean follow-up time as the moderator on each primary endpoint. Eleven RCTs (n = 6196) were identified with a mean follow-up of 21.9 months. The mean age and reported ejection fraction were 64.1 years and 27.7%, respectively. Remote monitoring did not reduce mortality (RR 0.89 [95% CI 0.77, 1.03]) or the composite of CV and HF hospitalizations (RR 0.98 [0.81, 1.19]). Subgroup analysis found significant HTE for hospitalizations between those studies that used right ventricular/pulmonary pressure monitoring versus impedance-based monitoring (I2 = 87.1%, chi2 = 7.75, p = 0.005). Regression analysis found no relationship between the log rate ratio of remote monitoring's effect on mortality, CV hospitalization or HF hospitalization, and mean follow-up time. Compared to standard of care, remote monitoring using implantable devices did not reduce mortality, CV, or HF hospitalizations. However, right ventricular/pulmonary pressure monitoring may reduce HF hospitalizations, which will need to be explored in future studies.