Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate whether digital home monitoring with centralised specialist support for remote management of heart failure (HF) is more effective in improving medical therapy and patients' quality of life than digital home monitoring alone. METHODS: In a two-armed partially blinded parallel randomised controlled trial, seven sites in the UK recruited a total of 202 high-risk patients with HF (71.3 years SD 11.1; left ventricular ejection fraction 32.9% SD 15.4). Participants in both study arms were given a tablet computer, Bluetooth-enabled blood pressure monitor and weighing scales for health monitoring. Participants randomised to intervention received additional regular feedback to support self-management and their primary care doctors received instructions on blood investigations and pharmacological treatment. The primary outcome was the use of guideline-recommended medical therapy for chronic HF and major comorbidities, measured as a composite opportunity score (total number of recommended treatment given divided by the total number of opportunities the treatment should have been given, with a score 1 indicating 100% adherence to recommendations). Co-primary outcome was change in physical score of Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire. RESULTS: 101 patients were randomised to 'enhanced self-management' and 101 to 'supported medical management'. At the end of follow-up, the opportunity score was 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62) in the control arm and 0.61 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.70) in the intervention arm (p=0.25). Physical well-being of participants also did not differ significantly between the groups (17.4 (12.4) mean (SD) for control arm vs 16.5 (12.1) in treatment arm; p for change=0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Central provision of tailored specialist management in a multi-morbid HF population was feasible. However, there was no strong evidence for improvement in use of evidence-based treatment nor health-related quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN86212709.

Original publication

DOI

10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316773

Type

Journal article

Journal

Heart

Publication Date

10/2020

Volume

106

Pages

1573 - 1578

Keywords

eHealth/telemedicine/mobile health, health care delivery, heart failure, quality and outcomes of care, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anthropometry, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory, Body Weight, Chronic Disease, Clinical Decision-Making, Computers, Handheld, Female, Health Status, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Quality of Life, Self Care, Telemedicine, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, United Kingdom