4.7 Article

Telemonitoring for heart failure: a meta-analysis

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 44, 期 31, 页码 2911-2926

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad280

关键词

Telemonitoring; Heart failure; Non-invasive; Invasive; Mortality; Hospitalization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comprehensive meta-analysis suggests that home telemonitoring systems (hTMS) can significantly reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalizations in heart failure patients.
Aims Telemonitoring modalities in heart failure (HF) have been proposed as being essential for future organization and transition of HF care, however, efficacy has not been proven. A comprehensive meta-analysis of studies on home telemonitoring systems (hTMS) in HF and the effect on clinical outcomes are provided. Methods and results A systematic literature search was performed in four bibliographic databases, including randomized trials and observational studies that were published during January 1996-July 2022. A random-effects meta-analysis was carried out comparing hTMS with standard of care. All-cause mortality, first HF hospitalization, and total HF hospitalizations were evaluated as study endpoints. Sixty-five non-invasive hTMS studies and 27 invasive hTMS studies enrolled 36 549 HF patients, with a mean follow-up of 11.5 months. In patients using hTMS compared with standard of care, a significant 16% reduction in all-cause mortality was observed [pooled odds ratio (OR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-0.93, I-2: 24%], as well as a significant 19% reduction in first HF hospitalization (OR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88, I-2: 22%) and a 15% reduction in total HF hospitalizations (pooled incidence rate ratio: 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.96, I-2: 70%). Conclusion These results are an advocacy for the use of hTMS in HF patients to reduce all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalizations. Still, the methods of hTMS remain diverse, so future research should strive to standardize modes of effective hTMS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据