Michael K Ong1, Patrick S Romano2, Sarah Edgington3, Harriet U Aronow4, Andrew D Auerbach5, Jeanne T Black6, Teresa De Marco5, Jose J Escarce7, Lorraine S Evangelista8, Barbara Hanna9, Theodore G Ganiats10, Barry H Greenberg11, Sheldon Greenfield12, Sherrie H Kaplan12, Asher Kimchi13, Honghu Liu14, Dawn Lombardo12, Carol M Mangione15, Bahman Sadeghi3, Banafsheh Sadeghi16, Majid Sarrafzadeh17, Kathleen Tong16, Gregg C Fonarow3. 1. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles2Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis4Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis. 3. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. 4. Office of Nursing Research and Development, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 6. Department of Resource and Outcomes Management, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 7. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles8Department of Health Policy & Management, University of California, Los Angeles9RAND Health, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. 8. Program in Nursing Science, University of California, Irvine. 9. School of Nursing, University of California, Davis. 10. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego13Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 11. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego. 12. Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine. 13. Division of Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 14. Division of Public Health & Community Dentistry, University of California, Los Angeles. 15. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles8Department of Health Policy & Management, University of California, Los Angeles. 16. Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis. 17. Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles19Department of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: It remains unclear whether telemonitoring approaches provide benefits for patients with heart failure (HF) after hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a care transition intervention using remote patient monitoring in reducing 180-day all-cause readmissions among a broad population of older adults hospitalized with HF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We randomized 1437 patients hospitalized for HF between October 12, 2011, and September 30, 2013, to the intervention arm (715 patients) or to the usual care arm (722 patients) of the Better Effectiveness After Transition-Heart Failure (BEAT-HF) study and observed them for 180 days. The dates of our study analysis were March 30, 2014, to October 1, 2015. The setting was 6 academic medical centers in California. Participants were hospitalized individuals 50 years or older who received active treatment for decompensated HF. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention combined health coaching telephone calls and telemonitoring. Telemonitoring used electronic equipment that collected daily information about blood pressure, heart rate, symptoms, and weight. Centralized registered nurses conducted telemonitoring reviews, protocolized actions, and telephone calls. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was readmission for any cause within 180 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes were all-cause readmission within 30 days, all-cause mortality at 30 and 180 days, and quality of life at 30 and 180 days. RESULTS: Among 1437 participants, the median age was 73 years. Overall, 46.2% (664 of 1437) were female, and 22.0% (316 of 1437) were African American. The intervention and usual care groups did not differ significantly in readmissions for any cause 180 days after discharge, which occurred in 50.8% (363 of 715) and 49.2% (355 of 722) of patients, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20; P = .74). In secondary analyses, there were no significant differences in 30-day readmission or 180-day mortality, but there was a significant difference in 180-day quality of life between the intervention and usual care groups. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients hospitalized for HF, combined health coaching telephone calls and telemonitoring did not reduce 180-day readmissions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01360203.
RCT Entities:
IMPORTANCE: It remains unclear whether telemonitoring approaches provide benefits for patients with heart failure (HF) after hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a care transition intervention using remote patient monitoring in reducing 180-day all-cause readmissions among a broad population of older adults hospitalized with HF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We randomized 1437 patients hospitalized for HF between October 12, 2011, and September 30, 2013, to the intervention arm (715 patients) or to the usual care arm (722 patients) of the Better Effectiveness After Transition-Heart Failure (BEAT-HF) study and observed them for 180 days. The dates of our study analysis were March 30, 2014, to October 1, 2015. The setting was 6 academic medical centers in California. Participants were hospitalized individuals 50 years or older who received active treatment for decompensated HF. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention combined health coaching telephone calls and telemonitoring. Telemonitoring used electronic equipment that collected daily information about blood pressure, heart rate, symptoms, and weight. Centralized registered nurses conducted telemonitoring reviews, protocolized actions, and telephone calls. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was readmission for any cause within 180 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes were all-cause readmission within 30 days, all-cause mortality at 30 and 180 days, and quality of life at 30 and 180 days. RESULTS: Among 1437 participants, the median age was 73 years. Overall, 46.2% (664 of 1437) were female, and 22.0% (316 of 1437) were African American. The intervention and usual care groups did not differ significantly in readmissions for any cause 180 days after discharge, which occurred in 50.8% (363 of 715) and 49.2% (355 of 722) of patients, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20; P = .74). In secondary analyses, there were no significant differences in 30-day readmission or 180-day mortality, but there was a significant difference in 180-day quality of life between the intervention and usual care groups. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients hospitalized for HF, combined health coaching telephone calls and telemonitoring did not reduce 180-day readmissions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01360203.
Authors: James Lubben; Eva Blozik; Gerhard Gillmann; Steve Iliffe; Wolfgang von Renteln Kruse; John C Beck; Andreas E Stuck Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2006-08
Authors: Thomas Thom; Nancy Haase; Wayne Rosamond; Virginia J Howard; John Rumsfeld; Teri Manolio; Zhi-Jie Zheng; Katherine Flegal; Christopher O'Donnell; Steven Kittner; Donald Lloyd-Jones; David C Goff; Yuling Hong; Robert Adams; Gary Friday; Karen Furie; Philip Gorelick; Brett Kissela; John Marler; James Meigs; Veronique Roger; Stephen Sidney; Paul Sorlie; Julia Steinberger; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Matthew Wilson; Philip Wolf Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-01-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Eduard E Vasilevskis; Sunil Kripalani; Michael K Ong; J Thomas Rosenthal; David E Longnecker; Brian Harmon; Samuel F Hohmann; Kelly Wright; Jeanne T Black Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Brian W Jack; Veerappa K Chetty; David Anthony; Jeffrey L Greenwald; Gail M Sanchez; Anna E Johnson; Shaula R Forsythe; Julie K O'Donnell; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Christopher Manasseh; Stephen Martin; Larry Culpepper Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michael R Zile; Tom D Bennett; Martin St John Sutton; Yong K Cho; Philip B Adamson; Mark F Aaron; Juan M Aranda; William T Abraham; Frank W Smart; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Fred J Kueffer; Robert C Bourge Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; Angela R Merrill; Eric M Schone; Geoffrey C Schreiner; Jersey Chen; Elizabeth H Bradley; Yun Wang; Yongfei Wang; Zhenqiu Lin; Barry M Straube; Michael T Rapp; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Elizabeth E Drye Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2009-07-09
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: Shivan J Mehta; Kevin G Volpp; David A Asch; Lee R Goldberg; Louise B Russell; Laurie A Norton; Lauren G Iannotte; Andrea B Troxel Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2019-04
Authors: Marat Fudim; Christopher M O'Connor; Allison Dunning; Andrew P Ambrosy; Paul W Armstrong; Adrian Coles; Justin A Ezekowitz; Stephen J Greene; Marco Metra; Randall C Starling; Adriaan A Voors; Adrian F Hernandez; G Michael Felker; Robert J Mentz Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2017-10-29 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Varol Burak Aydemir; Supriya Nagesh; Md Mobashir Hasan Shandhi; Joanna Fan; Liviu Klein; Mozziyar Etemadi; James Alex Heller; Omer T Inan; James M Rehg Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 4.538