Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Remote monitoring of implantable cardiac devices in heart failure patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Alotaibi, Sultan; Hernandez-Montfort, Jaime; Ali, Omar E; El-Chilali, Karim; Perez, Bernardo A.
Affiliation
  • Alotaibi S; Cardiac Center, King Fahad Armed Forces Hospital, Jeddah, 23311, Saudi Arabia.
  • Hernandez-Montfort J; Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
  • Ali OE; Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
  • El-Chilali K; Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA.
  • Perez BA; Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Heart Fail Rev ; 25(3): 469-479, 2020 05.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32002732
ABSTRACT
This study aims to determine whether the use of remote monitoring (RM) in implantable cardiac devices decreases all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization. We sought to conduct a systematic review and a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled studies. The population is adult patients with a diagnosis of HF with implantable devices. The intervention is RM using implantable cardiac devices whether added or used alone compared to standard of care. The outcomes are HF-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria defined in the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessment of risk of bias. Data were extracted and validity was assessed independently by two reviewers. Electronic databases EMBASE and MEDLINE (Ovid) were searched up to 14th of October 2019, supplemented by a second search in CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and clinicaltrials.gov. Only randomized controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals with full format text in English of adult HF patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months reporting mortality and/or hospitalization. Observational studies and studies that did not meet inclusion criteria were excluded. Thirteen randomized controlled studies that enrolled a total of 7015 patients were identified, 7 of which reported on all-cause mortality only and included 4460 patients. Compared with standard of care, the pooled relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalization in patients with RM compared to those receiving standard of care was 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.11) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.78-1.16), respectively. In the subgroup analysis, using pulmonary pressure for RM was associated with a decrease in HF-related hospitalization (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.60-0.88). RM showed benefit in reducing HF-related hospitalization when compared to standard of care only when using pulmonary pressure monitoring.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Telemedicine / Defibrillators, Implantable / Heart Failure / Monitoring, Physiologic Type of study: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Aspects: Patient_preference Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Heart Fail Rev Journal subject: CARDIOLOGIA Year: 2020 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Saudi Arabia

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Telemedicine / Defibrillators, Implantable / Heart Failure / Monitoring, Physiologic Type of study: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Aspects: Patient_preference Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Heart Fail Rev Journal subject: CARDIOLOGIA Year: 2020 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Saudi Arabia
...