Cited by 159Heart Failure Treatment and ManagementTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Home telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes after recent discharge in patients with heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation

Open access
Pandor, A, Thokala, P, Gomersall, T, Baalbaki, H, Stevens, JW, Wang, J, Wong, R, Brennan, A +1 more·2013·Health Technol Assess

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) strategies have the potential to deliver specialised care and management to patients with heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home telemonitoring (TM) or structured telephone support (STS) strategies compared with usual care for adult patients who have been recently discharged (within 28 days) from acute care after a recent exacerbation of HF. DATA SOURCES: Fourteen electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library) and research registers were searched to January 2012, supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles and contact with experts. The review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or observational cohort studies with a contemporaneous control group that included the following RM interventions: (1) TM (including cardiovascular implanted monitoring devices) with medical support provided during office hours or 24/7; (2) STS programmes delivered by human-to-human contact (HH) or human-to-machine interface (HM). REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (where appropriate) of the clinical evidence was carried out using standard methods. A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different RM packages compared with usual care for recently discharged HF patients. TM 24/7 or using cardiovascular monitoring devices was not considered in the economic model because of the lack of data and/or unsuitability for the UK setting. Given the heterogeneity in the components of usual care and RM interventions, the cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a set of costing scenarios designed to reflect the different configurations of usual care and RM in the UK. RESULTS: The literature searches identified 3060 citations. Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were added to the 15 trials identified from the previous systematic reviews giving a total of 21 RCTs included in the systematic review. No trials of cardiovascular implanted monitoring devices or observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the studies varied widely and reporting was generally poor. Compared with usual care, RM was beneficial in reducing all-cause mortality for STS HH [hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.55 to 1.08], TM during office hours (HR 0.76, 95% CrI 0.49 to 1.18) and TM 24/7 (HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.20 to 1.18); however, these results were statistically inconclusive. The results for TM 24/7 should be treated with caution because of the poor methodological quality of the only included study in this network. No favourable effect on mortality was observed with STS HM. Similar reductions were observed in all-cause hospitalisations for TM interventions, whereas STS interventions had no major effect. A sensitivity analysis, in which a study was excluded because it provided better-than-usual support to the control group, showed larger beneficial effects for most outcomes, particularly for TM during office hours. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, TM during office hours was the most cost-effective strategy with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £11,873 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with usual care, whereas STS HH had an ICER of £228,035 per QALY compared with TM during office hours. STS HM was dominated by usual care. Similar results were observed in scenario analyses performed using higher costs of usual care, higher costs of STS HH and lower costs of TM during office hours. LIMITATIONS: The RM interventions included in the review were heterogeneous in terms of monitored parameters and HF selection criteria and lacked detail in the components of the RM care packages and usual care (e.g. communication protocols, routine staff visits and resources used). As a result, the economic model developed scenarios for different RM classifications and their costs were estimated using bottom-up costing methods. Although the users can decide which of these scenarios is most representative of their setting, uncertainties still remain about the assumptions made in the estimation of these costs. In addition, the model assumed that the effectiveness of the interventions was constant over time, irrespective of the duration of deployment, and that the intervention was equally effective in different age/severity groups. CONCLUSION: Despite wide variation in usual care and RM strategies, cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that TM during office hours was an optimal strategy (in most costing scenarios). However, clarity was lacking among descriptions of the components of RM packages and usual care and there was a lack of robust estimation of costs. Further research is needed in these areas. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42011001368. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3310/hta17320

Cites

267 of 267 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 273 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Cohn JN, Ferrari R, Sharpe N. Cardiac remodeling -concepts and clinical implications: a consensus paper from an international forum on cardiac remodeling. Behalf of an International Forum on Cardiac Remodeling. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35:569-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0735-1097(99)00630-0 · DOI
  2. Scarborough P, Bhatnagar P, Wickramasinghe K, Smolina K, Mitchell C, Rayner M. Coronary heart disease statistics 2010 edition. London: British Heart Foundation; 2010.
  3. Davies M, Hobbs F, Davis R, Kenkre J, Roalfe AK, Hare R, et al. Prevalence of left-ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure in the Echocardiographic Heart of England Screening study: a population based study. Lancet 2001;358:439-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(01)05620-3 · DOI · Paper page
  4. McAlister FA, Stewart S, Ferrua S, McMurray JJ. Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure patients at high risk for admission: a systematic review of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:810-19.
  5. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter LM, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1235-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0895-4356(98)00131-0 · DOI
  6. Brooks S, Gelman A. Alternative methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat 1998;7:434-45.
  7. DeBusk RF, Miller NH, Parker KM, Bandura A, Kraemer HC, Cher DJ. Care management for low-risk patients with heart failure: a randomised, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:606-13.
  8. Rainville EC. Impact of pharmacist intervention on hospital readmissions for heart failure. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;56:1339-42.
  9. DeWalt DA, Malone RM, Bryant ME, Kosner MC, Corr KE, Rothman RL. A heart failure self- management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomised, controlled trial. Health Serv Res 2006;13:30.
  10. Sisk JE, Herbert PL, Horowitz CR, McLaughlin MA, Wang JJ, Chassin MR. Effects of nurse management on the quality of heart failure care in minority communities: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:273-83.
  11. Inglis SC, Clark RA, Cleland JG, Cochrane Systematic Review Team. Telemonitoring in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1078-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1100395 109. · DOI
  12. Zugck C, Cebola R, Frankenstein L, Nelles M, Taeger T, Pribe R, et al. Telemedicine reduces hospitalisation rates in patients with chronic heart failure -results of the randomized HiTel trial. Eur J Heart Fail Suppl 2008;7(Suppl. 9a):S170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1567-4215(08)60024-7 149. · DOI
  13. Benvenuto M, Beltrami L, Pizzocri S, Rossetti G, Redaelli C, Rainoldi M, et al. Management for chronic congestive heart failure (CHF): our experience of non-invasive home telemonitoring (HTM). J Hypertension 2008;26:S380-1. 180.
  14. Stafylas P, Dafoulas G, Aletras VH, Lashos V, Raptis O. Cost-utility analysis of home telemonitoring in elderly patients with chronic heart failure. Value Health 2008;11:A397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1098-3015(10)66350-4 322. · DOI
  15. Holland, R, Battersby, J, Harvey, I, Lenaghan, E, Smith, J, and Hay, L. Systematic review of multidisciplinary interventions in heart failure. Heart 2005; 91 899-906.
  16. Gonseth, J, Guallar-Castillon, P, Banegas, J. R, and Rodriguez-Artalejo, F. The effectiveness of disease management programmes in reducing hospital re-admission in older patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published reports. Eur Heart J 2004; 25 1570-1595.
  17. McAlister, F. A, Stewart, S, Ferrua, S, and McMurray, J. J. Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure patients at high risk for admission: a systematic review of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44 810-819.
  18. Clark, R. A, Inglis, S. C, McAlister, F. A, Cleland, J. G, and Stewart, S. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta- analysis. BMJ 2007; 334 942.
  19. Maric, B, Kaan, A, Ignaszewski, A, and Lear, S. A. A systematic review of telemonitoring technologies in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2009; 11 506-517.
  20. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.0. 2008; Copenhagen, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pandor, A., Thokala, P., Gomersall, T., Baalbaki, H., Stevens, J., Wang, J., Wong, R., Brennan, A., & Fitzgerald, P.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Venue
Health Technol Assess
Published
2013-08
Volume
17
Issue
32
Pages
1-207, v
ISSN
  • 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
  • 2046-4924
OpenAlex
W2058910331
Cited by
159
References
273
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Technology Assessment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
heart failure, home health monitoring, remote monitoring, hospital readmission, all-cause mortality, cost-effectiveness, post-discharge care, Markov model, network meta-analysis, usual care comparison, quality of life, patient satisfaction
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Heart Failure, Home Care Services, Humans, Markov Chains, Monitoring, Physiologic, Patient Discharge, Patient Readmission, Telephone, Telemedicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review