Efficacy of remote physiological monitoring-guided care for chronic heart failure: an updated meta-analysis

Previous studies have reported contradictory findings on the utility of remote physiological monitoring (RPM)-guided management of patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Multiple databases were searched for studies that evaluated the clinical efficacy of RPM-guided management versus standard of care (SOC) for HF patients. The primary outcome was HF-related hospitalization (HFH). The secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related (CV) mortality, and emergency department (ED) visits. Pooled relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and combined using a random-effects model. A total of 16 randomized controlled trials, including 8679 HF patients (4574 managed with RPM-guided therapy vs. 4105 managed with SOC), were included in the final analysis. The average follow-up period was 15.2 months. There was no significant difference in HFH rate between the two groups (RR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.84–1.07; P = 0.36). Similarly, there were no significant differences in CV mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73–1.02, P = 0.08) or in ED visits (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59–1.08, P = 0.14). However, RPM-guided therapy was associated with a borderline statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.78–1.00; P = 0.05). Subgroup analysis based on the strategy of RPM showed that both hemodynamic and arrhythmia telemonitoring–guided management can reduce the risk of HFH (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64–0.97; P = 0.02) and (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.67–0.94; P = 0.008) respectively. Our study demonstrated that RPM-guided diuretic therapy of HF patients did not reduce the risk of HFH but can improve survival. Hemodynamic and arrhythmia telemonitoring–guided management could reduce the risk of HF-related hospitalizations.