The Box-eHealth in the Outpatient Clinic Follow-up of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Cost-Utility Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Smartphone compatible wearables have been released on the consumers market, enabling remote monitoring. Remote monitoring is often named as a tool to reduce the cost of care. OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this paper is to describe a cost-utility analysis of an eHealth intervention compared to regular follow-up in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: In this trial, of which clinical results have been published previously, patients with an AMI were randomized in a 1:1 fashion between an eHealth intervention and regular follow-up. The remote monitoring intervention consisted of a blood pressure monitor, weight scale, electrocardiogram device, and step counter. Furthermore, two in-office outpatient clinic visits were replaced by e-visits. The control group received regular care. The differences in mean costs and quality of life per patient between both groups during one-year follow-up were calculated. RESULTS: Mean costs per patient were €2417±2043 (US $2657±2246) for the intervention and €2888±2961 (US $3175±3255) for the control group. This yielded a cost reduction of €471 (US $518) per patient. This difference was not statistically significant (95% CI -€275 to €1217; P=.22, US $-302 to $1338). The average quality-adjusted life years in the first year of follow-up was 0.74 for the intervention group and 0.69 for the control (difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.01; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: eHealth in the outpatient clinic setting for patients who suffered from AMI is likely to be cost-effective compared to regular follow-up. Further research should be done to corroborate these findings in other patient populations and different care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02976376; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02976376. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/resprot.8038.

Clinical and economic impact of HeartLogic™ compared with standard care in heart failure patients.

AIMS: The implantable cardiac defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator-based HeartLogic™ algorithm has recently been developed for early detection of impending decompensation in heart failure (HF) patients; but whether this novel algorithm can reduce HF hospitalizations has not been evaluated. We investigated if activation of the HeartLogic algorithm reduces the number of hospital admissions for decompensated HF in a 1 year post-activation period as compared with a 1 year pre-activation period. METHODS AND RESULTS: Heart failure patients with an implantable cardiac defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator with the ability to activate HeartLogic and willingness to have remote device monitoring were included in this multicentre non-blinded single-arm trial with historical comparison. After a HeartLogic alert, the presence of HF symptoms and signs was evaluated. If there were two or more symptoms and signs apart from the HeartLogic alert, lifestyle advices were given and/or medication was adjusted. After activation of the algorithm, patients were followed for 1 year. HF events occurring in the 1 year prior to activation and in the 1 year after activation were compared. Of the 74 eligible patients (67.2 ± 10.3 years, 84% male), 68 patients completed the 1 year follow-up period. The total number of HF hospitalizations reduced from 27 in the pre-activation period to 7 in the post-activation period (P = 0.003). The number of patients hospitalized for HF declined from 21 to 7 (P = 0.005), and the hospitalization length of stay diminished from average 16 to 7 days (P = 0.079). Subgroup analysis showed similar results (P = 0.888) for patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy during the pre-activation period or not receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy, meaning that the effect of hospitalizations cannot solely be attributed to reverse remodelling. Subanalysis of a single-centre Belgian subpopulation showed important reductions in overall health economic costs (P = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Activation of the HeartLogic algorithm enables remote monitoring of HF patients, coincides with a significant reduction in hospitalizations for decompensated HF, and results in health economic benefits.

Effect of Smartphone-Enabled Health Monitoring Devices vs Regular Follow-up on Blood Pressure Control Among Patients After Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Smart technology via smartphone-compatible devices might improve blood pressure (BP) regulation in patients after myocardial infarction. Objectives: To investigate whether smart technology in clinical practice can improve BP regulation and to evaluate the feasibility of such an intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was an investigator-initiated, single-center, nonblinded, feasibility, randomized clinical trial conducted at the Department of Cardiology of the Leiden University Medical Center between May 2016 and December 2018. Two hundred patients, who were admitted with either ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment acute coronary syndrome, were randomized in a 1:1 fashion between follow-up groups using smart technology and regular care. Statistical analysis was performed from January 2019 to March 2019. Interventions: For patients randomized to regular care, 4 physical outpatient clinic visits were scheduled in the year following the initial event. In the intervention group, patients were given 4 smartphone-compatible devices (weight scale, BP monitor, rhythm monitor, and step counter). In addition, 2 in-person outpatient clinic visits were replaced by electronic visits. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was BP control. Secondary outcomes, as a parameter of feasibility, included patient satisfaction (general questionnaire and smart technology-specific questionnaire), measurement adherence, all-cause mortality, and hospitalizations for nonfatal adverse cardiac events. Results: In total, 200 patients (median age, 59.7 years [interquartile range, 52.9-65.6 years]; 156 men [78%]) were included, of whom 100 were randomized to the intervention group and 100 to the control group. After 1 year, 79% of patients in the intervention group had controlled BP vs 76% of patients in the control group (P = .64). General satisfaction with care was the same between groups (mean [SD] scores, 82.6 [14.1] vs 82.0 [15.1]; P = .88). The all-cause mortality rate was 2% in both groups (P > .99). A total of 20 hospitalizations for nonfatal adverse cardiac events occurred (8 in the intervention group and 12 in the control group). Of all patients, 32% sent in measurements each week, with 63% sending data for more than 80% of the weeks they participated in the trial. In the intervention group only, 90.3% of patients were satisfied with the smart technology intervention. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that smart technology yields similar percentages of patients with regulated BP compared with the standard of care. Such an intervention is feasible in clinical practice and is accepted by patients. More research is mandatory to improve patient selection of such an intervention. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02976376.