4.5 Article

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Evaluation of Automated Home Monitoring and Telephonic Disease Management in Patients Recently Hospitalized for Congestive Heart Failure: The SPAN-CHF II Trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE
Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 285-292

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2009.12.012

Keywords

Heart failure disease management

Funding

  1. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc
  2. Philips Medical Systems, Inc
  3. Health Hero Network, Inc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We performed a prospective, randomized investigation assessing the incremental effect of automated health monitoring (AHM) technology over and above that of a previously described nurse directed heart failure (HF) disease management program. The AHM system measured and transmitted body weight, blood pressure, and heart rate data as well as subjective patient self-assessments via a standard telephone line to a central server. Methods and Results: A total of 188 consented and eligible patients were randomized between intervention and control groups in 1:1 ratio. Subjects randomized to the control arm received the Specialized Primary and Networked Care in Heart Failure (SPAN-CHF) heart failure disease management program. Subjects randomized to the intervention arm received the SPAN-CHF disease management program in conjunction with the AHM system. The primary end point was prespecified as the relative event rate of HF hospitalization between intervention and control groups at 90 days. The relative event rate of HF hospitalization for the intervention group compared with controls was 0.50 (95%CI [0.25-0.99], P = .05). Conclusions: Short-term reductions in the heart failure hospitalization rate were associated with the use of automated home monitoring equipment. Long-term benefits in this model remain to be studied. (J Cardiac Fail 2010;16:285-292)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available