BACKGROUND: Small studies suggest that telemonitoring may improve heart-failure outcomes, but its effect in a large trial has not been established. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1653 patients who had recently been hospitalized for heart failure to undergo either telemonitoring (826 patients) or usual care (827 patients). Telemonitoring was accomplished by means of a telephone-based interactive voice-response system that collected daily information about symptoms and weight that was reviewed by the patients' clinicians. The primary end point was readmission for any reason or death from any cause within 180 days after enrollment. Secondary end points included hospitalization for heart failure, number of days in the hospital, and number of hospitalizations. RESULTS:The median age of the patients was 61 years; 42.0% were female, and 39.0% were black. The telemonitoring group and the usual-care group did not differ significantly with respect to the primary end point, which occurred in 52.3% and 51.5% of patients, respectively (difference, 0.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.0 to 5.6; P=0.75 by the chi-square test). Readmission for any reason occurred in 49.3% of patients in the telemonitoring group and 47.4% of patients in the usual-care group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.0 to 6.7; P=0.45 by the chi-square test). Death occurred in 11.1% of the telemonitoring group and 11.4% of the usual care group (difference, -0.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.3 to 2.8; P=0.88 by the chi-square test). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to the secondary end points or the time to the primary end point or its components. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients recently hospitalized for heart failure, telemonitoring did not improve outcomes. The results indicate the importance of a thorough, independent evaluation of disease-management strategies before their adoption. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00303212.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Small studies suggest that telemonitoring may improve heart-failure outcomes, but its effect in a large trial has not been established. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1653 patients who had recently been hospitalized for heart failure to undergo either telemonitoring (826 patients) or usual care (827 patients). Telemonitoring was accomplished by means of a telephone-based interactive voice-response system that collected daily information about symptoms and weight that was reviewed by the patients' clinicians. The primary end point was readmission for any reason or death from any cause within 180 days after enrollment. Secondary end points included hospitalization for heart failure, number of days in the hospital, and number of hospitalizations. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 61 years; 42.0% were female, and 39.0% were black. The telemonitoring group and the usual-care group did not differ significantly with respect to the primary end point, which occurred in 52.3% and 51.5% of patients, respectively (difference, 0.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.0 to 5.6; P=0.75 by the chi-square test). Readmission for any reason occurred in 49.3% of patients in the telemonitoring group and 47.4% of patients in the usual-care group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.0 to 6.7; P=0.45 by the chi-square test). Death occurred in 11.1% of the telemonitoring group and 11.4% of the usual care group (difference, -0.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.3 to 2.8; P=0.88 by the chi-square test). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to the secondary end points or the time to the primary end point or its components. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients recently hospitalized for heart failure, telemonitoring did not improve outcomes. The results indicate the importance of a thorough, independent evaluation of disease-management strategies before their adoption. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00303212.).
Authors: Mikhail Kosiborod; Judith H Lichtman; Paul A Heidenreich; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Yun Wang; Lawrence M Brass; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Am J Med Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; Joan Amatruda; Grace L Smith; Jennifer A Mattera; Sarah A Roumanis; Martha J Radford; Paula Crombie; Viola Vaccarino Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-01-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sharon Ann Hunt; William T Abraham; Marshall H Chin; Arthur M Feldman; Gary S Francis; Theodore G Ganiats; Mariell Jessup; Marvin A Konstam; Donna M Mancini; Keith Michl; John A Oates; Peter S Rahko; Marc A Silver; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy; Elliott M Antman; Sidney C Smith; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Alice K Jacobs; Rick Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-09-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; Peter M Currie; Barbara Riegel; Christopher O Phillips; Eric D Peterson; Renee Smith; Clyde W Yancy; David P Faxon Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-09-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Andreas Von der Heidt; Elske Ammenwerth; Karl Bauer; Bettina Fetz; Thomas Fluckinger; Andrea Gassner; Willhelm Grander; Walter Gritsch; Immaculata Haffner; Gudrun Henle-Talirz; Stefan Hoschek; Stephan Huter; Peter Kastner; Susanne Krestan; Peter Kufner; Robert Modre-Osprian; Josef Noebl; Momen Radi; Clemens Raffeiner; Stefan Welte; Andreas Wiseman; Gerhard Poelzl Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Gordon R Reeves; David J Whellan; Pamela Duncan; Christopher M O'Connor; Amy M Pastva; Joel D Eggebeen; Leigh Ann Hewston; Timothy M Morgan; Shelby D Reed; W Jack Rejeski; Robert J Mentz; Paul B Rosenberg; Dalane W Kitzman Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Bobak J Mortazavi; Nicholas S Downing; Emily M Bucholz; Kumar Dharmarajan; Ajay Manhapra; Shu-Xia Li; Sahand N Negahban; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2016-11-08
Authors: Leor Perl; Elina Soifer; Jozef Bartunek; Dedi Erdheim; Friedrich Köhler; William T Abraham; David Meerkin Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Tessa J Kerby; Stephen E Asche; Michael V Maciosek; Patrick J O'Connor; Joann M Sperl-Hillen; Karen L Margolis Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Michele Heisler; Lakshmi Halasyamani; Mark E Cowen; Matthew D Davis; Ken Resnicow; Robert L Strawderman; Hwajung Choi; Rebecca Mase; John D Piette Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Kaushik Guha; Christopher J Allen; Sumir Chawla; Hayley Pryse-Hawkins; Laura Fallon; Vicki Chambers; Ali Vazir; Alex R Lyon; Martin R Cowie; Rakesh Sharma Journal: Clin Med (Lond) Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.659