@article{CDT23663,
author = {Ahmad Halawa and Tariq Enezate and Greg Flaker},
title = {Device monitoring in heart failure management: outcomes based on a systematic review and meta-analysis},
journal = {Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy},
volume = {9},
number = {4},
year = {2019},
keywords = {},
abstract = {Implantable devices have been developed for continuous monitoring of heart failure. We investigated the effect of fluids and hemodynamic monitoring, using these devices, on heart failure clinical outcomes. Literature search was performed January 2000 through May 2017 of studies comparing device monitored patients with control group. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool outcomes across the studies. A total of 5,454 patients were included from 14 studies. There was no difference in heart failure (HF)-related admissions rate [odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% CI: 0.92–1.69, P=0.15], all-cause mortality (OR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.91–1.61, P=0.20) or combined admission rate and all-cause mortality (OR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.89–1.64, P=0.22) between the device monitored and the control group. In a subgroup analysis including only pressure sensors devices, there was no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.62–1.74, P=0.89), however, there was a lower admissions rate (OR 1.63, 95% CI: 1.10–2.41, P=0.02). In a subgroup of only impedance monitoring devices, there was no difference in all-cause mortality or admissions rate. Pressure monitoring was associated with lower HF admissions rate. No improvement in these outcomes was noted with impedance monitoring.},
issn = {2223-3660}, url = {https://cdt.amegroups.org/article/view/23663}
}