Assessment of functionalities and attitude toward telemedicine for patients with cardiovascular disease.

Introduction: Many patients with cardiovascular diseases are only seen by a physician once or twice a year unless urgent symptoms. Recent years have shown an increase in digital technologies to follow patients remotely, that is, telemedicine. Telemedicine can be supportive for follow-up of patients at continuous risk. This study investigated patients' attitude toward telemedicine, the defined features they consider important and future willingness to pay. Methods: Cardiology patients with various types of prior telemedicine follow-up or who never had a telemonitoring follow-up were included. A new self-developed survey was implemented electronically and took 5-10 min to complete. Results: In total, 231 patients (191 telemedicine [T] and 40 controls [C]), were included. Most participants owned a smartphone (84.8%) and only 2.2% of the total participants did not own any digital device. The most important feature of telemedicine cited in both groups was personalization (i.e., personalized health tips based on medical history, 89.6%; personalized feedback on entered health parameters 86.1%). The most important motivating factor for the use of telemedicine is recommendation by a physician (84.8%), while the reduction of in-person visits is a minor reason (24.7%). Only half of the participants (67.1%) would be willing to pay for telemedicine tools in the future. Conclusion: Patients with cardiovascular disease have a positive attitude to telemedicine, especially when it allows for more personalized care, and when it is advocated by the physician. Participants expect that telemedicine becomes part of reimbursed care. This calls for interactive tools with proven efficacy and safety, while guarding unequal access to care.

On-demand mobile health infrastructures to allow comprehensive remote atrial fibrillation and risk factor management through teleconsultation.

BACKGROUND: Although novel teleconsultation solutions can deliver remote situations that are relatively similar to face-to-face interaction, remote assessment of heart rate and rhythm as well as risk factors remains challenging in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). HYPOTHESIS: Mobile health (mHealth) solutions can support remote AF management. METHODS: Herein, we discuss available mHealth tools and strategies on how to incorporate the remote assessment of heart rate, rhythm and risk factors to allow comprehensive AF management through teleconsultation. RESULTS: Particularly, in the light of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is decreased capacity to see patients in the outpatient clinic and mHealth has become an important component of many AF outpatient clinics. Several validated mHealth solutions are available for remote heart rate and rhythm monitoring as well as for risk factor assessment. mHealth technologies can be used for (semi-)continuous longitudinal monitoring or for short-term on-demand monitoring, dependent on the respective requirements and clinical scenarios. As a possible solution to improve remote AF care through teleconsultation, we introduce the on-demand TeleCheck-AF mHealth approach that allows remote app-based assessment of heart rate and rhythm around teleconsultations, which has been developed and implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. CONCLUSION: Large scale international mHealth projects, such as TeleCheck-AF, will provide insight into the additional value and potential limitations of mHealth strategies to remotely manage AF patients. Such mHealth infrastructures may be well suited within an integrated AF-clinic, which may require redesign of practice and reform of health care systems.

Telemonitoring-based feedback improves adherence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants intake in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Aims: To evaluate the effect of telemonitoring on adherence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Methods and results: A randomized, single-blind, crossover, controlled trial in 48 AF patients on once or twice daily (OD or BID) NOAC. The Medication Event Monitoring System tracked NOAC intake during three phases of 3 months each: daily telemonitoring, telemonitoring with immediate telephone feedback in case of intake errors, and an observation phase without daily transmissions. Unprotected days were defined as ≥ 3 or ≥ 1 consecutively missed doses for a BID or OD NOAC, respectively, or excess dose intake. Cost-effectiveness was calculated based on anticipated stroke reduction derived from patients' risk profile and measured intake. Persistence over the entire study was 98%. Telemonitoring-only already led to very high taking and regimen adherence (97.4% respectively 93.8%). Nevertheless, direct feedback further improved both to 99.0% and 96.8%, respectively (P < 0.001 respectively P = 0.002). Observation without daily monitoring resulted in a significant waning of taking adherence (94.3%; P = 0.049). Taking adherence was significantly higher for OD compared to BID NOAC, although unprotected days were similar. Feedback intervention had an incremental cost of €344 289 to prevent one stroke, but this could be as low as €15 488 in high-risk patients with low adherence and optimized technology. Conclusion: Telemonitoring resulted in high NOAC adherence due to the notion of being watched, as evidenced by the rapid decline during the observation period. Feedback further optimized adherence. Telemonitoring with or without feedback may be a cost-effective approach in high-risk patients deemed poorly adherent.

Performance of handheld electrocardiogram devices to detect atrial fibrillation in a cardiology and geriatric ward setting.

AIMS: To determine the usability, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of two handheld single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) devices for atrial fibrillation (AF) screening in a hospital population with an increased risk for AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalized patients (n = 445) at cardiological or geriatric wards were screened for AF by two handheld ECG devices (MyDiagnostick and AliveCor). The performance of the automated algorithm of each device was evaluated against a full 12-lead or 6-lead ECG recording. All ECGs and monitor tracings were also independently reviewed in a blinded fashion by two electrophysiologists. Time investments by nurses and physicians were tracked and used to estimate cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies. Handheld recordings were not possible in 7 and 21.4% of cardiology and geriatric patients, respectively, because they were not able to hold the devices properly. Even after the exclusion of patients with an implanted device, sensitivity and specificity of the automated algorithms were suboptimal (Cardiology: 81.8 and 94.2%, respectively, for MyDiagnostick; 54.5 and 97.5%, respectively, for AliveCor; Geriatrics: 89.5 and 95.7%, respectively, for MyDiagnostick; 78.9 and 97.9%, respectively, for AliveCor). A scenario based on automated AliveCor evaluation in patients without AF history and without an implanted device proved to be the most cost-effective method, with a provider cost to identify one new AF patient of €193 and €82 at cardiology and geriatrics, respectively. The cost to detect one preventable stroke per year would be €7535 and €1916, respectively (based on average CHA2DS2-VASc of 3.9 ± 2.0 and 5.0 ± 1.5, respectively). Manual interpretation increases sensitivity, but decreases specificity, doubling the cost per detected patient, but remains cheaper than sole 12-lead ECG screening. CONCLUSION: Using AliveCor or MyDiagnostick handheld recorders requires a structured screening strategy to be effective and cost-effective in a hospital setting. It must exclude patients with implanted devices and known AF, and requires targeted additional 12-lead ECGs to optimize specificity. Under these circumstances, the expenses per diagnosed new AF patient and preventable stroke are reasonable.