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.

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.