Fluid status telemedicine alerts for heart failure: a randomized controlled trial
Primary resultResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 0.87 95% CI 0.72–1.04Authors' conclusion
Among ICD patients with advanced HF, fluid status telemedicine alerts did not significantly improve outcomes.
Study context
- Population
- Patients recently implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) with or without CRT, with prior heart failure (HF) hospitalization, recent diuretic treatment or recent brain natriuretic peptide increase
- Participants
- 1,002 participants
- Comparison
- Fluid status telemedicine alerts vs standard care
- Primary endpoint
- Composite of:
- All-cause death
- CV hospitalization
- Follow-up
- Average 1.9 years
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
0.87
95% CI 0.72–1.04
P = 0.13
Events by treatment group
Intervention vs Control
HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.72–1.04); P = 0.13
Further findings
| Outcome | Intervention | Control | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Death | 11.7% | 12.7% | 0.89 (0.62–1.28) | P = 0.52 | |
| 0.512Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Alert handling
- Alerts not transmitted
- 24%
- Alerts followed by a medical intervention
- 30%
Original publication
Fluid status telemedicine alerts for heart failure: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Heart J. Published 16 March 2016. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it