European heart journal · 2023
Telemonitoring for heart failure: a meta-analysis.
МетаанализСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Scholte Niels T B, Gürgöze Muhammed T, Aydin Dilan, Theuns Dominic A M J, Manintveld Olivier C, Ronner Eelko, Boersma Eric, de Boer Rudolf A, van der Boon Robert M A, Brugts Jasper J
Аннотация
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, I2: 24%], as well as a significant 19% reduction in first HF hospitalization (OR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88, I2: 22%) and a 15% reduction in total HF hospitalizations (pooled incidence rate ratio: 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.96, I2: 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.
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, I2: 24%], as well as a significant 19% reduction in first HF hospitalization (OR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88, I2: 22%) and a 15% reduction in total HF hospitalizations (pooled incidence rate ratio: 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.96, I2: 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.