Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes of Remote Hemodynamic Assessment Versus Standard Care in Patients With Heart Failure

In patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), remote hemodynamic monitoring can reduce heart failure exacerbation and mortality. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of remote hemodynamic monitoring with that of standard care in the management of patients with CHF. The remote monitoring group included 7,733 patients, and the control group included 7,567 patients. Chi-square test and I-square statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using fixed-effects and random-effects methods to determine the risk of all-cause hospitalization and CHF-related hospitalization (primary outcomes) and all-cause mortality and device outcomes (secondary outcomes). Pooled findings indicated a 7% lower risk of all-cause hospitalization in the remote monitoring group than that in the control group (RR 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89 to 0.98, p = 0.004). The results also revealed a 32% lower risk of CHF-related hospitalization in the remote monitoring group than that in the control group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.71, p <0.001). No statistically significant differences were noted between the groups in terms of all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07, p = 0.53) and device outcomes (RR 1.23 95% CI 0.92 to 1.65, p = 0.16). These results provided evidence regarding the comparable effectiveness of remote CHF monitoring and routine care. The current evidence is insufficient to introduce remote hemodynamic CHF monitoring; however, our results suggest that the integration of telemonitoring systems with routine medical management may improve heart failure care.