Disclaimer
This information collection is a core HTA, i.e. an extensive analysis of one or more health technologies using all nine domains of the HTA Core Model. The core HTA is intended to be used as an information base for local (e.g. national or regional) HTAs.

Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure

Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure compared to Usual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist or patient has to move (≠ at home) in the prevention of Chronic cardiac failure in adults and elderly with chronic heart failure (CHF) AND hospitalization due to heart failure at least once AND without implanted devices

(See detailed scope below)

HTA Core Model Application for Medical and Surgical Interventions (2.0)
Core HTA
Published
Tom Jefferson (Agenas - Italy), Marina Cerbo (Agenas - Italy), Nicola Vicari (Agenas - Italy)
Neill Booth (THL - Finland), Plamen Dimitrov (NCPHA - Bulgaria), Mirjana Huic (AAZ - Croatia), Valentina Rupel (IER - Slovenia), Alessandra Lo Scalzo (Agenas - Italy), Ingrid Wilbacher (HVB - Austria)
Agenas - Agenzia nazionale per i servizi sanitari regionali
AAZ (Croatia), Agenas (Italy), ASSR RER (Italy), Avalia-t (Spain), CEM (Luxembourg), GÖG (Austria), HVB (Austria), IER (Slovenia), ISC III (Spain), NCPHA (Bulgaria), NIPH (Slovenia), NSPH (Greece), NSPH MD (Romania), SBU (Sweden), SNHTA (Switzerland), THL (Finland), UTA (Estonia).
9.9.2014 11.18.00
4.12.2015 17.51.00
Jefferson T, Cerbo M, Vicari N [eds.]. Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure [Core HTA], Agenas - Agenzia nazionale per i servizi sanitari regionali ; 2015. [cited 20 November 2019]. Available from: http://meka.thl.fi/ViewCover.aspx?id=305

Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure

Collection summary

Health problem and current use of technology (CUR)

According to the European Society of Cardiology, heart failure is a clinical syndrome in which patients have typical symptoms and signs resulting from an abnormality of cardiac structure or function. Although often life threatening, typical symptoms and signs resulting from an abnormality of cardiac structure or function, i.e. heart failure, leading to failure of the heart to deliver oxygen at a rate corresponding to the needs of the body are usually less dramatic than those associated with a myocardial infarction {77}.

HF is a large and global public health problem that will become more important with the aging of the world population. Up to one person in five is expected to develop HF at some point in their life in economically developed countries {70}.

Telemedicine is an approach using remote monitoring e.g. by structured telephone support of prognostic factors in order to promote an early identification of clinical deterioration in HF patients, prevent hospital readmission for acute decompensated HF, and avoid further complications {3}. Signs and symptoms reported by patients are collected by a healthcare professional who subsequently enters and stores the data into a monitoring system. The data are then reviewed by healthcare professionals, usually physicians or nurses. Appropriate action can be initiated, and deterioration can be rapidly detected, which leads to decrease in unnecessary hospital visits, a decrease in hospital (re-)admissions, an improved quality of life. {75}. The highest risk period for hospital readmission is the first few weeks after discharge {90}. Overall, telemonitoring has the potential to improve patient safety and quality of care {21}.

Substantial heterogeneity among studies was noted {119}, the content of the telemedicine interventions vary between patient groups and with regard to duration and content.

Most studies report care provided by a multidisciplinary team, but a great deal of heterogeneity regarding the professionals involved was described. Collaboration between primary care and secondary care was scarcely reported. In almost all the studies, nurses played a coordinating or leading role, but description of the specialization of clinical background were lacking. A different variation of systems for telemonitoring was found, ranging from assessment of symptoms and/or vital signs to data transmission and automatic alarms. {51}

Generally, telemedicine and telemonitoring can be seen as relatively new, currently as an adjunct to current care with the chance of more patient-self-care-involvement and improved quality of therapeutic monitoring, but without a clear unique idea where it should lead to and how it should be implemented.

Structured telephone support may not be not suitable for every patient diagnosed with HF.

Patients with cognitive impairment, a mental illness, a life expectancy less than one year, hearing impairment, language barrier or another chronic disease are often not eligible for a telemonitoring intervention such as structured telephone support {93}.

Description and technical characteristics of technology (TEC)

The non-invasive telemedicine/telemonitoring mainly contains the following aspects (seperately or combined):

  • patient education
  • self-care supportive strategies
  • monitoring and (daily) transmission of vital parameters and weight
  • telephone-follow up
  • medication management (adherence),
  • fluid management (adherence)
  • problem solving
  • exercise recommendation
  • diet adeherence
  • goal setting

Usual care mainly consists of

  • standard post-discharge care without intensified attendance at cardiology clinics
  • clinic-based CHF disease management programme
  • home visiting

There is no consensus definition of the fundamental terms utilized.

Telemedicine/ telemonitoring interventions can be used in all different settings (outpatient, outpatient clinic, hospital based, home, mixed setting), they are mainly provided in outpatient organisations, the most important part ist the additional setting at the patients‘ home.

The reference values for heart failure diagnostic (- monitoring) are mainly a) mortality and b) hospitalisation (rate).

The needs for a sustainable telemonitoring include

  • Qualified professionals (human resources) doing the monitoring/ statistics/emergency prioritisation
  • Economic resources to provide the infrastructure for data transmission (GSM network, analogue phoneline, internet, software) and telephone support, documentation, home visits, etc.
  • Transparent selection of patients who benefit best

Information to patients outside the target group and the general public should focus on the reasons and the explanation for inclusion or exclusion of people/ patients for access to structured telephone support. People should be informed that structured telephone support is not suitable for all individuals nor is it appropriate under all medical circumstances

There is also an „upcoming“ topic called mHealth meaning mobile health through mobile phones and similar devices using software applications (apps). There is increasing interest on mhealth, especially with the hope of easy and equal acces for information, tele-diagnostic or –care aspects and data collection and use for health purpose. Some major aspects are to be worked out (like network issues, data security, information quality, legal and regulatory aspects etc.) and are aim within the EU horizon 2020.

Safety (SAF)

To determine whether treatment with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure /New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV, without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRTs) or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure/ improves clinical outcomes and quality of life, has impact on patients’ satisfaction and function, change in management or utilization of health service and patients’ and technical safety (technical reliability), in comparison with current practice, a systematic literature search according to the predefined search strategy (not limited by publication date but limited to English language), was performed according to the Cochrane methodology, in standard medical and HTA databases.  References have been included or excluded according to the overall research question, Population-Intervention-Control-Outcome (PICO)-scheme, and the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. One hundred full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and after the exclusion of 76 full-text articles, five high quality SRs and 19 full text published RCTs were included in our SR. Of the included RCTs, only three were judged to be of low risk of bias.

In the most recent SR no evidence on potential harms was found on STS interventions. None of 19 included RCTs specifically mentioned adverse events (AEs) as primary or secondary outcomes. In only one RCT which specifically mentioned AEs no adverse events were reported and only one RCT provided explanation on the reason why it did not monitor AEs. Since little evidence was identified on the potential harms of STS, it was not possible to assess overall benefits and harms of STS in adults with chronic heart failure.

The sources were not sufficient to answer the questions on STS safety in patients with chronic heart failure. No evidence was found to answer technical safety.

Clinical effectiveness (EFF)

To determine whether treatment with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure /New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV, without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRTs) or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure/ improves clinical outcomes and quality of life, has impact on patients’ satisfaction and function, change in management or utilization of health service and patients’ and technical safety (technical reliability), in comparison with current practice, a systematic literature search according to the predefined search strategy (not limited by publication date but limited to English language), was performed according to the Cochrane methodology, in standard medical and HTA databases.  References have been included or excluded according to the overall research question, Population-Intervention-Control-Outcome (PICO)-scheme, and the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. One hundred full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and after the exclusion of 76 full-text articles, five high quality SRs and 19 full text published RCTs were included in our SR. Of the included RCTs, only three were judged to be of low risk of bias.

STS produced a mortality benefit and reduced HF-specific readmission rates. For the outcomes QoL and utilization the evidence was insufficient. Yet, the majority of studies presented statistically significant QoL improvements. A majority of the RCTs found no significant difference in the number of emergency room visits in either group. No evidence found to answer some assessment element questions, related on outcomes such as work ability, return to previous living conditions, activities of daily living, worthwhile of STS and willing to use STS again.

STS reduces HF-specific readmission and mortality. A majority of the studies presented statistically significant improvements in QoL. Some research gaps and transferability issues were recognized. Further research is needed on effects of STS on QoL and utilization outcomes as well as patient satisfaction during long term follow-up.

Costs and economic evaluation (ECO)

It became apparent from the results of our systematic literature search and our review of the results from other domains that the meaning of the term Structured telephone support (STS) varies quite widely across the studies. Hence, there is no explicit definition STS and, instead, the term is refers to a diverse set of approaches to care management for adults with chronic heart failure using telephonic networks.

Depending on the approach taken to STS, a range of different pieces of information can be collected by telephone from patients, and any such information can be handled and utilised by the management team or system in a large number of ways.

Therefore, one main result of the ECO domain is that variation in the nature of the intervention poses major challenges to undertaking meaningful examination of intervention costs and to undertaking economic evaluations.

If each type of STS intervention, has both different components and consequences, this has a significant effect on ability to make meaningful estimates of costs and to undertake robust economic evaluations. For this reason, we do not summarise the results of the studies per se but, instead, briefly describe those studies found.

Ethical analysis (ETH)

The current domain outlines some ethical issues arising from the use of the particular technology, i.e.  structured telephone support for adult patients suffering from CHF. Together with all the clinical efforts in the management of this devastating condition, part of the recent research has been concentrated on finding low-cost therapeutic alternatives as telemedicine and further understanding of the psychological, ethical, legal and social aspects of handling the particular technology and its impact on the patients themselves, their families and friends, the healthcare personnel and the healthcare providers as well as the society as a whole.

In compliance with the preliminarily outlined domain framework, the following issues have been considered in the text – all of them abiding by the generally accepted ethical principles: beneficence/nonmaleficence; autonomy; respect for persons and justice and equity:

  • Improving patients’ quality of life;
  • Challenges associated with the digital gap;
  • Challenges posed by the remote interaction between a physician and a patient;
  • Fair and balanced distribution of resources;
  • Equal access to treatment;
  • Stigmatization.

As already mentioned, on the agenda stand many ethical challenges, with the border between the benefits and harms associated with telemedicine remaining vague and fluid rather than sharply defined. This is due to the virtual environment, where electronically mediated communication replaces personal interaction and physical contact.

Since the issues discussed are highly controversial, the current text does not pretend to be a detailed or comprehensive analysis but provides some thoughts and reflections. Instead of giving certain prescriptions, the authors aim at providing a balance between norms and values through the consideration of social, political, cultural, legal, religious and economic aspects arising from the opposition to the generally accepted environmental values, healthcare system goals and the application of new technologies.

A particular problem that could affect the quality and nature of the conclusions in the text stems from the fact that, like many other innovations in the healthcare field, almost all of the studies from the available literature, assessing the positive and negative impact of telemedicine, focus primarily on the purely economic, technical and clinical parameters, particularly emphasizing on cost reduction and technological efficiency but ignoring the ethical considerations at the same time.

Generally, scientific literature demonstrates that the effect of telemedicine on patient-centered care varies more or less. Some studies see the negatives, but most find neutral or positive effects. In view of all these and acknowledging some of the literature gaps already mentioned, the authors may conclude that the basis of empirical studies is still too poor to allow any solid conclusions at this stage.

Organisational aspects (ORG)

When planning the introduction of a TM intervention in general, there are several questions that need to be addressed concerning: the choice of patients targeted by these programmes; the parameters that will be monitored; the more efficient way to monitor them; the training of patients and healthcare personnel; how to organize the response of the health care professionals to data obtained from monitoring to optimize patient care. Possibly management will need to deal with (de)employment of new resources, new information systems, new equipment for STS provisions, new administrative leadership and new group culture that promotes quality improvement.

STS can be carried out in very different settings, from primary care to tertiary care. There is little information in the studies on the changes of the workflow – usually for the STS an additional nurse was used who had access to patient data, carried out the STS, monitored the patient, recorded the symptoms and data and reinforced and adapted the plan of care for the patient.

In STS the most important thing is training and education of nurses and patients and communication. The STS support starts being planned while the patient is in hospital through education and meeting with the HF nurse. Education and practising with the technology follows and the materials are given to the patients as well as explained to the relatives. At the point of discharge the timing of the first call is agreed. The frequency of calls varies greatly among the studies but in common the calls are weekly at least first two weeks after discharge and then get biweekly until two months after discharge. After that they become monthly. The number of telephone contacts per week should not be too high, not even in the first week as this may affect adherence. Adherence is reported from 55,1% to 84% across the studies, adaptation to the technology to 90% or higher, more than 90% of patietns are statisfied with the use of technology.

 It is not clear how long the intervention should last: there are different periods, going from 3 months up to 2 years after the discharge. It is not clear when the effect is biggest, possibly within first 3 months. A published communication strategy is important, including patient support strategy, communication between patient: nurse, patient: medical doctor, patient: pharmacist, the brochures, diaries to record daily control measurements, web pages with disease information and with instructions, instructions for family members  to share a best practise. In general, STS provides greater access to care in geographical terms and no specific problems were mentioned regarding financial accessibility.

In spite of various methods of costs calculation, which makes them highly incomparable, it is posisble to establish that the average costs of intervention across the studies amounted from $23,6 to $443, the reported savings amounted from $30,9 to $536 per patient per month. None of the studies analyzed a shift of cost, from specialits to HF nurse to GP.

Eligibility to new technology depends on an assessment of the general practitioner of a patient’s condition and the patient's willingness and ability to participate. Access to new technologies depends on support of healthcare providers as they are rarely reimbursed.

Social aspects (SOC)

The aspects related to patients’ quality of life and satisfaction with STS, patients’ views, perceptions and probable improvements in self care allowed by the use of this intervention, are an important part of the success of this technology.

In the studies where quality of life (QoL) is measured with standardised instruments, there is a significant improvement of QoL in the intervention group or no difference between the usual care and the intervention. Pandor’s systematic review shows that 4 studies which had quality of life as a secondary outcome and where about STS, reported improvements in QoL, with significant improvements in physical [Angermann, 2011] and overall [Barth, 2001, Wakefiled, 2008] measures, but one study found no significant differences between the groups [Riegel, 2006]. Oher (primary) studies we selected gave scattered results. Dunagan et al. 2005 found that nurse-administered, telephone-based disease management intervention had some impact on functional status and quality of life. Piotrowicz et al. 2015 found that the in the intervention group there was a similar improvement in total QoL index as in the control group. Patients who underwent home-based tele rehabilitation observed an improvement mainly in the mental categories. On the other hand Ramachandran et al, 2007 found and increase in quality of life, as a whole and in many dimensions the intervention group that persisted over time. For Jerant 2003 telenursing at least did not have any large negative impact on patient satisfaction or health status. In the study by Boyne et al. 2014 authors conclusions says that tailored telemonitoring was found to educate patients with HF and to improve their self-care abilities and sense of self-efficacy. Domingues and collegues state that in thier study (2011) the educational nursing intervention performed during the hospitalization period brought improved knowledge of HF and self-care in all patients regardless of telephone contac.

The organisational differences among the variuos STS interventions in the selected studies (programs offering exercise, education and behavioral interventions on patients’ psychological outcomes, or monitoring systems of vital signs led by nurses or physician etc.) can help to explain those differences in findings and results and make trasferability and comparability of them difficoult.

To have a deeper understanding about how patients experience the care when it is moved outside of the hospital to their homes with  the support of STS, we also selected qualitative studies which allow to highlight perceptions of patients about complex interventions. From this perspective selected qualitative studies show that there can be positive and negative aspects in using telemedicine and its application such as STS. Lynga et al. 2013 interviews to patients who used the intervention showed, that  the technology was easy to perform, made patients active in their own care, and increased their self-care activities. However, there were concerns of potential deterioration: transmission of body weight reminded patients of illness, deterioration in their health, increase of diuretic dose (inconvenience in the patient’s daily life) and some experienced also a perception of fear that affected their psychological well being.

As regard tro the barriers to the use of the technology, digital divide related to the age or socio-economical status which could avoid patients to use the facilities related to the intervention, we could not retrive definitive and conclusive studies. The qualitative literature that gave an answer to this reaserch question would show digital divide due to age as not being a relevant problem. Seto et al. shows that relatives of those not technology-accustomed would be able to provide support to patient [Seto 2012]. Bond, 2014 finds that most people found the telehealth system easy to use and in the study of Prescher, 2013 most of the patients reported an easy and robust handling of the devices. Nontheless more quantitative studies about the influence of age, gender etc. on the use of STS should be developed to better understand implications of thoses macrosocial variables on the use of STS.

Legal aspects (LEG)

For the implementation of telemonitoring one has to look at least for existing property rights on the used system, the implemented software, existing patents, and to secure/regulate the permission for use.

For structured telephone support as a telemonitoring approach for patients with chronic heart failure there is a need of patient-cooperation which implies the will of the patient to take this kind of healthcare.

Data networks and data communication between providers of tele-healthcare and patients have to secure and protect data sources according to legal data protection regulations.

In any case the data protection should be on awareness, especially with low-level support via usual telephone or cell phone line. The informed consent with the patient and the (written) agreement are necessary.

Limited access to structured telephone support as a telemonitoring service for special persons have to be based on the balance between evidence of best outcome rates, economic calculations for the costs and reduction of possible disadvantages due to i.e. lack of compliance. The decision for inclusion/ exclusion into a structured telephone support service  has to be transparent.

Usually there is no health care tourism expected for structured telephone support for chronic heart failure patients. In case of (emergency) treatment abroad and re-transfer into the home-country the appropriate information and continuity of care has to be guaranteed. The routine provision of structured telephone support across borders (in our outside Europe) is expected to be limited by language.

There seem to be no major differences in product safety aspects comparing structured telephone support with usual care. The product safety and responsibility duties have to be followed in both settings. If telemonitoring/ stuctured telephone support is newly implemented there should be appropriate awareness for the safety structure to be equal/similar (or better) as in ”usual care”

Within structured telephone support provided by a physical person (like a nurse) and/or a group of professionals evaluating deterioration from the collected data by STS, the guarantee for quality can be given via the professional licencing regulations as it is handled within hospitals.

The Directive on public contracting assures price control of servies in case of contracting the whole STS service or in case of material purchasing for HF patients at home. Pricining within reimbursement system for STS (like DRG) is subject to national legislation. The pricing within DRG system must therefore take into account all national legislation and regulation, like national policy on wages or depreciation. However,  when the material costs are built into DRG, again the procedures for the public contracting is important, in case of STS it oculd apply to the telephone lines and various equipment that is given to HF patients to monitor their health status at home  (scales, meters for circumference of ankles etc).

Within medical services and/or medical devices advertising is regulated by local governments to prevent misinterpretation about the device or service.

There is still legal uncertainty within the provision of structured telephone support for patients with chronic heart failure in terms of

  • Cross border healthcare services
  • Funding aspects
  • Reimbursement
  • Procurement
  • Sustainable business models
  • Data protection via telephone line
  • Provider responsibilities

For the provision of telemedical services/ STS several different legal regulations have to be followed, like:

  • Occupational laws
  • Hospital legislations
  • Good clinical practice
  • Health telematic law
  • Data protection law
  • E-government law
  • Consumer protection law
  • Signature law
  • E-commerce-law
  • Telecommunication law
  • Copyright/ patent protection
  • Media law

(list not exhaustive)

Collection methodology

Objective

To produce a Core Health Technology Assessment (HTA) assessing the effects of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure based on the EUnetHTA Core Model and working within the a mixed Collaborative Model organisational framework.

Methods

The work was based on the HTA Core Model application for Medical and Surgical Interventions (2.0)  , which was developed during the EUnetHTA Joint Actions 1 and 2.

The first phase was the selection of the technology to be assessed using the Core Model; this phase was carried out through a three-step process that is described in our MSP.

Then a check of Partners’ availability to assume responsibility for taking the lead in one of the nine evaluation domains was carried out. At the same time, the nine domain teams were built-up in accordance with partners’ preferences and some general guidelines (see the MSP).

Finally the specific work plan was shared, according with the general WP4 3-year work plan and objectives. This specific work plan included the phases scheduled in the “HTA Core Model Handbook” (Production of Core HTAs and structured HTA information).

An editorial team was set up for discussion and major decisions on basic principles and solutions related to the content of core HTA. The editorial team was chaired by Tom Jefferson (Agenas) and composed of all the primary investigators of the domains.

To allow collaboration between partners a draft protocol for Core Model use was agreed by the researchers involved. The research questions for each of the nine domains of the Core Model were formulated and the corresponding relevant assessment elements (AEs) were selected. The legal domain was included in the assessment.

The research strategy was carried out by Agenas with input from the other partners.

Evidence from published and manufacturer sources was identified, retrieved, assessed, and included according to pre-specified criteria, and summarised to answer each AE. Domain assessments were done by a single agency and by different investigators from different agencies, in a mixed organisational model. The final text has not been proof read.

Introduction to collection

This brief document provides background information on the preparation and development of the Core HTA on Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure. The core HTA document was produced during the course of the second EUnetHTA Joint Action (JA2) 2012-2015.

The idea behind EUnetHTA’s Core Model is to provide a framework for structuring relevant HTA information while at the same time facilitating local use and adaptation of the information or guiding its production.

The Model is based on nine dimensions or “domains” of evaluation:

  1. Health Problem and Current Use of the Technology (CUR)
  2. Description and technical characteristics of technology (TEC)
  3. Safety (SAF)
  4. Effectiveness (EFF)
  5. Costs and economic evaluation (ECO)
  6. Ethical analysis (ETH)
  7. Organisational aspects (ORG)
  8. Social aspects (SOC)
  9. Legal aspects

The Core Model application for Medical and Surgical Interventions (2.0)  was tested by assessing the effects of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure. We produced a Core HTA structured as in the nine documents that follow, one for each domain.

This Core HTA was prepared using an experimental Collaborative Model (COLMOD) in which groups of researchers from different HTA Institutions produced the domain texts. For the Core HTA on Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure the experimental organisational model added an element of challenge but probably helped to forge strong links across participants.

In the next few months an intensive validation programme including interviews and consultations will elicit comments and feedback both from those who contributed to the Core HTA and from those who read a Core HTA for the first time. As scheduled in the 3-year work plan, the Core HTA will be sent to the Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) for feedback before the final Public Consultation, during which the Core HTA will be made publicly available.

The results from the Validation and SAG consultation should provide useful information to improve the product.

Scope

TechnologyStructured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure
Description

Telemonitoring via structured telephone support with focus on patient reported signs (symptoms of congestion, peripheral edema, pulmonary congestion, dyspnea on exertion, abdominal fullness), medication adherence, physiological data (like heart rate, blood pressure, body weight – measured by the patient with home-device), activity level; done in regular schedules using risk stratification (with fixed algorithm by call center staff or experience-based by specialized staff); done by dedicated call centers, center-based staff, nurses, AND reduced visits to a GP or heart center

Intended use of the technologyPrevention

Remote transmission of information to alleviate symptoms, relieve suffering and allow timely treatment for chronic heart failure

Target condition
Chronic cardiac failure
Target condition description

Heart failure is a condition in which the heart has lost the ability to pump enough blood to the body's tissues. With too little blood being delivered, the organs and other tissues do not receive enough oxygen and nutrients to function properly.

Target population

Target population sex: Any. Target population age: adults and elderly. Target population group: Patients who have the target condition.

Target population description

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF; defined as I50 http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/I00-I99/I30-I52/I50-/I50 ) AND hospitalization due to heart failure at least once  AND without implanted devices

ComparisonUsual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist or patient has to move (≠ at home)
Description

Usual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist; patient has to move (≠ at home)

Outcomes

Mortality (disease specific and all cause) progressions, admissions, re-admissions, QoL or HRQoL, harms

Health Problem and Current Use of the Technology

Authors: Ingrid Wilbacher, Nadine Berndt, Francesca Gillespie

Summary

CUR1: For which health conditions and for what purposes is structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure used?

Structured telephone support, as subject of the current Core HTA, is one specific type of remote heart failure monitoring. It is monitoring and/or self-care management using simple telephone technology, usually initiated by a healthcare professional (e.g. nurse, physician, social worker or pharmacist), and in which data is stored by a computer.

Telemedicine is an approach using remote monitoring e.g. by structured telephone support of prognostic factors in order to promote an early identification of clinical deterioration in HF patients, prevent hospital readmission for acute decompensated HF, and avoid further complications {3}. Signs and symptoms reported by patients are collected by a healthcare professional who subsequently enters and stores the data into a monitoring system. The data are then reviewed by healthcare professionals, usually physicians or nurses. Appropriate action can be initiated, and deterioration can be rapidly detected, which leads to decrease in unnecessary hospital visits, a decrease in hospital (re-)admissions, an improved quality of life. {75}. The highest risk period for hospital readmission is the first few weeks after discharge {90}. Overall, telemonitoring has the potential to improve patient safety and quality of care {21}.

CUR2: What kind of variations in use are there across countries/regions/settings?

There were 62 studies from Europe cited in the reviews. Out of the 62 European studies 16 mentioned educational strategies within the telemedicinal programme. The involved persons were cardiologists (3 studies), multidisciplinary teams at least for the care plan (25 studies), physician-/primary care led (1 study each), nurse-led (4 studies), not mentioned in the reviews (32 studies).

The transfer mode was in 17 studies via telephone/ cell phone transmission, in 4 studies through implantable devices, 1 study describes interactive videoconferencing, transtelephonic monitoring, 1 study described hospital-at-home service, 2 studies just described non-invasive telemonitoring, in 36 the transfer mode was not clear.

Most studies report care provided by a multidisciplinary team, but a great deal of heterogeneity regarding the professionals involved was described. Collaboration between primary care and secondary care was scarcely reported. In almost all the studies, nurses played a coordinating or leading role, but description of the specialization of clinical background were lacking. Almost all programmes also had physicians involved, which could be cardiologists, and/or primary care physicians or other specialists such as geriatricians or internists. Additionally, other professionals (i.e. psychologist, dietician, physical therapist, social worker, pharmacist) were involved in the programmes, mostly as a member of the multidisciplinary team or occasionally as the main provider of an intervention (e.g. a pharmacist). A different variation of systems for telemonitoring was found, ranging from assessment of symptoms and/or vital signs to data transmission and automatic alarms. {51}

Substantial heterogeneity among studies was noted {119}, the content of the telemedicine interventions vary between patient groups and with regard to duration and content.

CUR3 / ORG1: Who decides which people are eligible for structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and on what basis?

Three of the reviews reported eligibility and exclusion criteria for patients included in the studies, but there was no answer on who decides or who should decide to use telemedicine for what patient.

CUR4: Is structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure a new, innovative mode of care, an add-on to or modification of a standard mode of care or replacement of a standard mode of care?

Eight of the included reviews try to look at the indicators for novelty and how they lead to a novel attitude – like including the patient - and new settings – like different patient- and physician roles - of health care. They still describe telemedicine as „changing modality“, „promising“, „complementary“, „potentially“, „modality“, and a common insecurity about what exactly is defined as telemedicine and what kind of programmes were modified into telemedicine (like disease management programmes which are technically supported) seems to occur.

Generally, telemedicine and telemonitoring can be seen as relatively new, currently as an adjunct to current care with the chance of more patient-self-care-involvement and improved quality of therapeutic monitoring, but without a clear unique idea where it should lead to and how it should be implemented.

CUR5: What is the target population in this current assessment of structured telephone support for adult patients with chronic heart failure?

In this current assessment of structured telephone support for adult patients with chronic heart failure, the target population is patients who have signs or symptoms of HF, or an underlying non-diagnosed abnormality of the cardiac structure that is likely to lead to HF.

According to the large number of studies that have been conducted on the clinical effectiveness of telemonitoring in HF patients, the appropriate target population of telemonitoring generally concerns elderly, with a definitive clinical diagnosis of HF, with a mean age generally around the 70s (patients may also be significantly younger or older), or with chronic HF, often who have had a cardiovascular hospitalization or a hospitalization for HF within the previous 12 months, who have been discharged to home, often with moderate or severe symptoms of HF (New York Heart Association, NYHA class II-IV), a LVEF ≤ 30 %, and who are administered diuretics, ACE inhibitors and beta blockers.

Structured telephone support may not be not suitable for every patient diagnosed with HF. According to Koehler et al. 2011 {64}, telemonitoring is particularly suitable for patients who are recently hospitalized due to HF, medically unstable, or classified being in the NYHA Class II and III. Koehler also recommends performing telemonitoring during the 12 event-free months after hospitalization for HF {64}.

Guidelines of the ESC recommend remote monitoring of patients reporting symptoms (including drug adverse effects) and signs of HF (Class I recommendation, Level of Evidence: C) {19}.

Patients with cognitive impairment, a mental illness, a life expectancy less than one year, hearing impairment, language barrier or another chronic disease are often not eligible for a telemonitoring intervention such as structured telephone support {93}. This has been confirmed by Paré et al. 2010 {92} who outlined on the basis of their systematic review on the clinical effects of home telemonitoring in the context of diabetes, asthma, HF and hypertension that telemonitoring likely to not be suitable for everyone, because most studies excluded patients with a moderate to severe cognitive, physical, visual or hearing disability. Patients who did not own a phone or who a very short life expectancy (less than 1 year) were often excluded as well. The beneficial effects on state of health are observed mostly among those patients whose health state is rather serious {92}.

CUR6: How many people belong to the target population?

HF is a large and global public health problem that will become more important with the aging of the world population. The number of patients with HF is predicted to increase considerably in countries with fast ageing populations, like Japan. Up to one person in five is expected to develop HF at some point in their life in economically developed countries {70}. In 2007, it was already estimated that approximately 1–2 % of the adult population in developed countries had HF and that the incidence approached on average 5–10 per 1000 persons per year with a significantly higher incidence in higher age groups {82}.

 

In 2011, it was estimated that 26 million adults worldwide were living with HF {6}, leading some to describe it as a global pandemic {2}. Of these patients at least 15 million are European {19}, whereas almost 7 million Americans ≥ 20 years of age have HF {120}. According to the AHA, at least 850.000 patients are yearly newly diagnosed with HF in the US with the incidence approaching 1 per 100 people 65 years of age and older.  %Data on the incidence and prevalence of HF in the developing world are largely absent, but it is estimated that there is also an increasing number of patients with HF in the developing countries due to the emerging pandemic of cardiovascular diseases {78}.  % % %

HF is a condition that becomes more common with increasing age. In North America and Europe, persons 50 years of age or under are hardly ever found to have HF {32},{7},{107}, and more than 80 % are 65 years of age or older {6}. Hence, particularly in those older than 50 years of age the prevalence and incidence increase progressively with age. Generally speaking, in 2007 the prevalence was estimated to be 10-20 % in persons with the age between 70 and 80 while it was rising significantly to ≥10 % among persons 70 years of age or older {82}. In the Dutch Rotterdam study, the prevalence of HF was 1 % in the age group of 55-64 years, 3 % in the age group of 65-74 years and 13 % in the age group of 75-85 years {81}. Moreover, according US estimates, the remaining lifetime risk for development of new HF remains at 20 % at 80 years of age, even in the face of a much shorter life expectancy {83}.  

 

Overall, the prevalence of systolic HF and diastolic HF is estimated to be equal between men and women. According to the ESC (2012), at least half of patients with HF have a low or reduced ejection fraction. HF with a preserved ejection fraction or diastolic HF is present in approximately 50 % the patients with HF {77},{29}. In younger age groups, systolic HF occurs more frequently in men than in women because myocardial infarction occurs at an earlier age in men. Diastolic HF is more common in the elderly, in women, in individuals with longstanding hypertension, diabetes, renal failure, anemia, and atrial fibrillation {19}. Studies show that the accuracy of the diagnosis of HF by clinical means alone is often inadequate. This applies particularly to female, elderly, and obese patients, leading to a potential underrepresentation of the patients who have HF {106},{60},{77}.

 

The globally increasing prevalence of HF is not merely due to the ageing of the population. It is also due to improvements in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes, effective prevention in those at high risk or those who have already survived a first coronary event, a longer survival of cardiac patients and HF patients, and the increasing epidemiology of cardiovascular diseases in the developing countries  {84},{100},{116}. An increase in risk factors for HF such as diabetes, sedentary behavior and obesity also contribute to the increasing pool of HF patients. Factors that on the other hand decrease the incidence of HF are a decline in the number of new cases with myocardial infarction, a decline in the severity of acute myocardial infarction and the improvement of care {40},{85}. The improvement of care for hypertension and coronary artery disease, particularly in Western Countries, also account for a decreasing incidence {86}.

Although various studies have been conducted in the past to capture the epidemiology of HF, there is still a scarcity of epidemiological data. The absence of gold-standard criteria for the diagnosis of HF, together with a lack of agreement on a definition of HF itself, explains why studies fail to use a uniform assessment of HF.

CUR7: What is the disease or health condition in the scope of this assessment?

According to the European Society of Cardiology, heart failure is a clinical syndrome in which patients have typical symptoms and signs resulting from an abnormality of cardiac structure or function. Although often life threatening, typical symptoms and signs resulting from an abnormality of cardiac structure or function, i.e. heart failure, leading to failure of the heart to deliver oxygen at a rate corresponding to the needs of the body are usually less dramatic than those associated with a myocardial infarction {77}.

The current 10th edition of the International Classification (ICD) system classifies heart failure as an intermediate, not underlying cause of death. It is described as congestive heart failure including congestive heart disease and right ventricular failure. It is also defined as left ventricular failure including cardiac asthma, left heart failure, and oedema of lung and pulmonary oedema with mention of heart disease (unspecified) or heart failure. Heart failure (unspecified) can be due to cardiac, heart or myocardial failure not otherwise specified. Heart failure is further defined as the incidence of heart failure due to rheumatic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, ischemic heart disease and inflammatory heart disease. Complicating abortion or ectopic or molar pregnancy, obstetric surgery and procedures are excluded. Moreover, heart failure due to hypertension (with renal disease), heart failure following cardiac surgery or due to presence of cardiac prosthesis, and neonatal cardiac failure are excluded from the classical definition of heart failure by the ICD-10 {113}.

CUR8: What are the known risk factors for the disease or health condition?

Risk factors for HF (AHA):

-increasing age (AHA);

-male gender (AHA);

-African American race (AHA);

-hypertension (AHA);

-obesity (AHA);

-low socio-economic status (AHA);

-cigarette smoking (AHA);

-history of atrial fibrillation (AHA);

-diagnosis of CHD (AHA);

-atherosclerosis {115},{77};

-low level of adiponectin and a high level of pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) in the bloodstream {83};

-increased urinary albumin excretion, an elevated serum γ-glutamyl transferase, higher levels of hematocrit, increased circulating concentrations of resistin, cystatin C, inflammatory markers (interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-α) and low serum albumin levels {83};

-previous recognized or unrecognized viral infection {77};

-increased alcohol intake {77};

-chemotherapy {77};

-‘idiopathic’ dilated cardiomyopathy.

Risk factors for hospitalization in heart failure {30}:

-higher age;

-nonwhite race;

-low socio-economic status;

-lack of employment ;

-living alone, smoking;

-ischemic etiology;

-low systolic blood pressure;

-higher NYHA class (III or IV);

-prior HF hospitalization;

-presence of hypertension;

-diabetes mellitus;

-anemia;

-hyponatremia;

-history of renal insuffiency;

-worsening renal function;

-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;

-obstructive sleep apnea;

-depression;

-low quality of life;

-absence of emotional support or social network;

-low adherence to therapies (Giamouzis et al., 2011).

Risk factors for hospital readmission among older persons with a new onset of HF {8}:

  • diabetes mellitus;

  • NYHA class III or IV;

  • chronic kidney disease;

  • reduced ejection fraction (< 45 %);

  • muscle weakness;

  • slow gait;

  • having a depression.

 

Greater survival for patients with established CHF (“reverse epidemiology”) {54}:

  • obesity;

  • < >< >

    Substantial heterogeneity in the results {33};

  • Telehealth programmes demonstrated clinical effectiveness in patients with CHF compared with usual care {114};

  • It was not clear as to the extent to which these effects were due to tele-monitoring per se or to the improvement in access to care{44};

  • Despite the beneficial effects reported by meta-analyses of small non-controlled studies, major randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate a positive impact of this strategy {102};

  • Prior to being accepted as a standard of care, more evidence from large, randomized clinical trials is required {34};

  • Structured telephone support and telemonitoring are effective in reducing the risk of all-cause mortality and CHF-related hospitalisations; in patients with CHF; they improve quality of life, reduce costs, and evidence-based prescribing {48};

  • The present review demonstrated that home telemonitoring is generally clinically effective, and no patient adverse events were reported in the included studies {93};

  • Telemonitoring appears to be an acceptable method for monitoring of HF patients {75}.

 CUR12: What are the differences in the management for different stages of the disease or health condition?

There is interest in new approaches of telemonitoring {1}, but at the moment there is no guideline recommendation available (possible) {45,24,1,110,3,33,44} for telemonitoring in general but for multidisciplinary CHF management programmes {87}.

CUR13: How is the disease or health condition currently diagnosed according to published guidelines and in practice?

Most guidelines agree on three essential stages of care for patients with heart failure:

-Diagnosis (should be timely and accurate);

-Treatment (should be appropriate to each patient and available urgently if necessary);

-Longterm management (should include follow-up, monitoring and support).

Disagree is observed on which diagnostic tools should be used for all patients with suspected heart failure and in which order.

Especially for invasive diagnostics there are some differences and challenges according to the interpretation of the diagnostic and prognostic value.

CUR14: How is the disease or health condition currently managed according to published guidelines and in practice?

Global assessment

-Despite clear recommendations regarding evidence-based medications, many patients with heart failure do not receive a prescription for potentially beneficial medication because they do not always comply with guidelines {45}

Europe

-In Europe prescription doses are often below those recommended {26},{28},{65};

-In Europe guidelines incorporate follow-up, monitoring  and support, however, about a quarter (7/26) of the countries reported having heart failure management programmes in more than 30 % ot their hospitals {49}  and even when in place, they are not always used.

USA

-In the US most hospital had fewer than half of 10 key recommended practices in place and fewer than 3 % had 10 in place {4};

-In the US more than a quarter of patients with heart failure did not receive an appropriate prescription {26},{28},{65}.

Australia

  • A recent Australian consensus statement {88}report that the management of chronic heart failure remains a pressing problem, with many apparent indicators of poor case detection, including discordant management with evidence-based treatment, recurrent hospital admission, and disconnected care issues these that are amplified among marginalised populations.

 

CUR15: What is the marketing authorisation status of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases?

For equipment used as „telemedicine“ or „telemonitoring“ in a (community-)setting and/or within a disease management programme the devices seem to be individually created for the local need and based on a software for data-collection via mobile App, internet or as a database where data are written in while telephone interviews.

There is a database for medical devices within the EU (http://ec.europa.eu/health/medical-devices/market-surveillance-vigilance/eudamed/index_en.htm) which is access-restricted.

CUR16: What is the reimbursement status of structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure across countries?

This question is left un-answered. Due to the situation of high complexity among the use and settings within the terminus of „telemonitoring/ telemedicine“ and the new or developmental status of the intervention(s) no explicit answer can be provided in the frame of an HTA.

Introduction

The present domain describes the current state of the health condition, i.e. chronic heart failure and the current state of the health technology, i.e. structured telephone support under consideration for this Core HTA. HF is generally characterized by an underlying cardiac dysfunction that impairs the ability of the left ventricle to either fill with blood or contract to eject blood. It is not a disease but a collection of signs, symptoms, and pathophysiology. Typical symptoms are dyspnea or fatigue. Different stages of chronic HF are distinguished, particularly earlier and later stages, and acute and chronic stages {47}{86}. Patients diagnosed with HF have a high risk of readmission especially in the first weeks after hospital discharge. HF is associated with significant reduced quality of life, morbidity, and mortality {90}.

In 2011, it was estimated that 26 million adults worldwide were living with HF {6}, leading some to describe it as a global pandemic {2}. Due to the aging population, an improved survival after a cardiac event and better treatment of HF, the prevalence rates of HF are expected to rise {75}. Particularly in those older than 50 years of age the prevalence and incidence of HF increase progressively. Up to one person in five is expected to develop HF at some point in their life in economically developed countries {70}.

HF puts a considerable burden on the healthcare systems around the globe, largely due to high hospital (re)admission rates, and long hospital stays. The rising healthcare costs, rapid advances in communication and diagnostic technology, and the availability of low-cost telemedicine equipment are important factors that have significantly contributed to the increasing use of telemedicine for the provision of care {71}. A range of different technological modalities for monitoring and/or self-care management exists in telemedicine, including structured telephone support {13}.

Structured telephone support is one specific type of remote heart failure monitoring. It is monitoring and/or self-care management using simple telephone technology, usually initiated by a healthcare professional (e.g. nurse, physician, social worker or pharmacist) who collects relevant patient data and stores them in a computer. Data can hence be reviewed by the healthcare professional and if necessary, action can immediately be untaken {47},{ 99}(Chaudry et al., 2007).

For the PICO question as defined in October 2014, we focused on adult persons (aged 16 or more) suffering from congestive heart failure getting home-telemonitoring (defined as domiciliary detection, recognition, identification, location and transmission of vital functions and other biological information) compared to no home telemonitoring. After the PICO was adjusted in the beginning of 2015, we focused on adult patients with chronic heart failure receiving structured telephone support (STS) compared to no structured telephone support. 

This domain provides basic information about heart failure and telemonitoring aspects.

Methodology

Frame

The collection scope is used in this domain.

TechnologyStructured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure
Description

Telemonitoring via structured telephone support with focus on patient reported signs (symptoms of congestion, peripheral edema, pulmonary congestion, dyspnea on exertion, abdominal fullness), medication adherence, physiological data (like heart rate, blood pressure, body weight – measured by the patient with home-device), activity level; done in regular schedules using risk stratification (with fixed algorithm by call center staff or experience-based by specialized staff); done by dedicated call centers, center-based staff, nurses, AND reduced visits to a GP or heart center

Intended use of the technologyPrevention

Remote transmission of information to alleviate symptoms, relieve suffering and allow timely treatment for chronic heart failure

Target condition
Chronic cardiac failure
Target condition description

Heart failure is a condition in which the heart has lost the ability to pump enough blood to the body's tissues. With too little blood being delivered, the organs and other tissues do not receive enough oxygen and nutrients to function properly.

Target population

Target population sex: Any. Target population age: adults and elderly. Target population group: Patients who have the target condition.

Target population description

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF; defined as I50 http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/I00-I99/I30-I52/I50-/I50 ) AND hospitalization due to heart failure at least once  AND without implanted devices

ComparisonUsual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist or patient has to move (≠ at home)
Description

Usual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist; patient has to move (≠ at home)

Outcomes

Mortality (disease specific and all cause) progressions, admissions, re-admissions, QoL or HRQoL, harms

Assessment elements

TopicIssue RelevantResearch questions or rationale for irrelevance
A0001UtilisationFor which health conditions and for what purposes is the technology used?yesFor which health conditions and for what purposes is structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure used?
A0012UtilisationWhat kind of variations in use are there across countries/regions/settings?yesWhat kind of variations in use are there across countries/regions/settings?
G0009UtilisationWho decides which people are eligible for the technology and on what basis?yesWho decides which people are eligible for structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and on what basis?
F0001UtilisationIs the technology a new, innovative mode of care, an add-on to or modification of a standard mode of care or replacement of a standard mode of care?yesIs Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure a new, innovative mode of care, an add-on to or modification of a standard mode of care or replacement of a standard mode of care?
A0011UtilisationHow much is the technology utilised currently and in the future?noOverlapping with Question B0003
B0003UtilisationWhat is the phase of development and implementation of the technology and the comparator(s)?noThis overlaps with the "management" in the CUR domain and will be answered there
A0007Target PopulationWhat is the target population in this current assessment of the technology?yesWhat is the target population in this current assessment of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
A0023Target PopulationHow many people belong to the target population?yesHow many people belong to the target population?
A0002Target ConditionWhat is the disease or health condition in the scope of this assessment?yesWhat is the disease or health condition in the scope of this assessment?
A0003Target ConditionWhat are the known risk factors for the disease or health condition?yesWhat are the known risk factors for the disease or health condition?
A0004Target ConditionWhat is the natural course of the disease or health condition?yesWhat is the natural course of the disease or health condition?
A0005Target ConditionWhat are the symptoms and burden of disease for the patient at different stages of the disease?yesWhat are the symptoms and burden of disease for the patient at different stages of the disease?
A0009Target ConditionWhat aspects of the consequences / burden of disease are targeted by the technology?yesWhat aspects of the consequences / burden of disease are targeted by Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
A0006Target ConditionWhat are the consequences of the disease or the health condition for the society (i.e. the burden of the disease)?noWe will answer the epidemiological aspects in A0023
A0017Current Management of the ConditionWhat are the differences in the management for different stages of the disease or health condition?yesWhat are the differences in the management for different stages of the disease or health condition?
A0024Current Management of the ConditionHow is the disease or health condition currently diagnosed according to published guidelines and in practice?yesHow is the disease or health condition currently diagnosed according to published guidelines and in practice?
A0025Current Management of the ConditionHow is the disease or health condition currently managed according to published guidelines and in practice?yesHow is the disease or health condition currently managed according to published guidelines and in practice?
A0018Current Management of the ConditionWhat are the other typical or common  alternatives to the current technology?noThe comparator is defined in the PICO. The different telemedical tools are not seen as "alternatives".
A0020Regulatory StatusWhat is the marketing authorisation status of the technology?yesWhat is the marketing authorisation status of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
A0021Regulatory StatusWhat is the reimbursement status of the technology across countries?yesWhat is the reimbursement status of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure across countries?

Methodology description

Information sources

The basic common project search was used for this domain, added by guidelines and references found within the search results (handsearch). Methodological differences are mentioned in each assessment element.

Quality assessment tools or criteria

For the basic description of the health problem and the current management options within this domain a descriptive review without data use was provided, therefore no quality assessment about the studies’ methodology was done.

Analysis and synthesis

The common literature search that was done by the project leaders’ librarian for this Core HTA was scanned, in case articles were selected as being relevant based upon their title and abstract they were read in fulltext from all three authors,  and relevant answers for the assessment element questions were extracted. The three authors divided the questions into three parts. Each part had a main researcher and was checked by the other two. The draft document was sent to the domain reviewers, and their feedback was considered and implemented.

Result cards

Utilisation

Result card for CUR1: "For which health conditions and for what purposes is structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure used?"

View full card
CUR1: For which health conditions and for what purposes is structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure used?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Completely

Result card for CUR2: "What kind of variations in use are there across countries/regions/settings?"

View full card
CUR2: What kind of variations in use are there across countries/regions/settings?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Completely

Result card for CUR3 / ORG10: "Who decides which people are eligible for structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and on what basis?"

View full card
CUR3 / ORG10: Who decides which people are eligible for structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and on what basis?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for CUR4: "Is Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure a new, innovative mode of care, an add-on to or modification of a standard mode of care or replacement of a standard mode of care?"

View full card
CUR4: Is Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure a new, innovative mode of care, an add-on to or modification of a standard mode of care or replacement of a standard mode of care?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Target Population

Result card for CUR5: "What is the target population in this current assessment of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?"

View full card
CUR5: What is the target population in this current assessment of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for CUR6: "How many people belong to the target population?"

View full card
CUR6: How many people belong to the target population?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Target Condition

Result card for CUR7: "What is the disease or health condition in the scope of this assessment?"

View full card
CUR7: What is the disease or health condition in the scope of this assessment?
Method
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for CUR8: "What are the known risk factors for the disease or health condition?"

View full card
CUR8: What are the known risk factors for the disease or health condition?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for CUR9: "What is the natural course of the disease or health condition?"

View full card
CUR9: What is the natural course of the disease or health condition?
Method
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for CUR10: "What are the symptoms and burden of disease for the patient at different stages of the disease?"

View full card
CUR10: What are the symptoms and burden of disease for the patient at different stages of the disease?
Method
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for CUR11: "What aspects of the consequences / burden of disease are targeted by Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?"

View full card
CUR11: What aspects of the consequences / burden of disease are targeted by Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

Current Management of the Condition

Result card for CUR12: "What are the differences in the management for different stages of the disease or health condition?"

View full card
CUR12: What are the differences in the management for different stages of the disease or health condition?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for CUR13: "How is the disease or health condition currently diagnosed according to published guidelines and in practice?"

View full card
CUR13: How is the disease or health condition currently diagnosed according to published guidelines and in practice?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for CUR14: "How is the disease or health condition currently managed according to published guidelines and in practice?"

View full card
CUR14: How is the disease or health condition currently managed according to published guidelines and in practice?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Regulatory Status

Result card for CUR15: "What is the marketing authorisation status of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?"

View full card
CUR15: What is the marketing authorisation status of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for CUR16: "What is the reimbursement status of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure across countries?"

View full card
CUR16: What is the reimbursement status of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure across countries?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Optional

Transferability: Not

Discussion

We found clear descriptions and stages for heart failure, despite the fact that HF is more or less a range of (increasingly frequent) symptoms than a disease with a certain cause and treatment. There is a long list of underlying risk factors for developing and worsening the condition which also can be used as monitoring indicators for deterioration. In 2007, it was already estimated that approximately 1–2 % of the adult population in developed countries had HF and that the incidence approached on average 5–10 per 1000 persons per year with a significantly higher incidence in higher age groups {82}.

 

However, available epidemiological data in HF are not comprehensive since they only describe a fraction of patients with this syndrome. Due to the absence of gold-standard criteria for the diagnosis of HF and the lack of agreement on a definition of HF, there are considerable variations in the estimates of HF. Moreover, the highly selected hospitalized patients, retrospective analysis, and other non-cardiac related may bias the real estimates {116},{82}.

 

The condition starts symptom-free and is worsening by impairment in daily living (physical activity) due to increasingly frequent symptoms. The stages/ classes are described in detail (ESC, NYHA, ACC/AHA, Killip).

For telemonitoring there is a long list on expectations for potential advantages within the care of chronically ill patients (with HF). The idea is to shift a part of care (the observation of deterioration) towards the patient self- or homecare. Studies from Europe mainly highlight educational strategies within the telemedicinal programme. The involved health professionals are cardiologists, multidisciplinary teams and physician-/nurse- primary care. At the moment there is no guideline recommendation available for telemonitoring in general but for multidisciplinary CHF management programmes. The transfer mode described for telemonitoring is mainly via telephone/ cell phone transmission, or through implantable devices, interactive videoconferencing, transtelephonic monitoring are other options. Substantial heterogeneity among studies was noted. Telemonitoring is mainly described as new and additive technology, especially for Europe, although the history of telemedicine started in 1987 in the US.

Telemonitoring may not be suitable for every patient. It is particularly suitable for patients who are recently hospitalized due to HF, medically unstable, or classified being in the NYHA Class II and III. Guidelines of the ESC recommend remote monitoring of patients reporting symptoms (including drug adverse effects) and signs of HF (Class I recommendation, Level of Evidence: C). Patients with cognitive impairment, a mental illness, a life expectancy less than one year, language barrier or another chronic disease are often not eligible for a telemonitoring intervention {93},{92}. Patients who do not own a phone were often excluded from the studies as well. The beneficial effects on state of health are observed mostly among those patients whose health state is rather serious {92}.

Most guidelines agree on three essential stages of care for patients with heart failure, which are a timely accurate diagnosis, appropriate treatment and long-term management, but there is disagree observed on which diagnostic tools should be used for all patients with suspected heart failure and in which order. Especially for invasive diagnostics there are some differences and challenges according to the interpretation of the diagnostic and prognostic value.

For the invasive device-monitoring there are companies mentioned in the included studies which provide their registration status online. For other equipment used as „telemedicine“ or „telemonitoring“ in a (community-)setting and/or within a disease management programme the devices seem to be individually created for the local need and based on a software for data-collection via a telephone app, internet or as a database where data are written in while telephone interviews. Due to restricted access for the European registries and some no-name descriptions of the content of telemonitoring, the registration could not be followed for all systems found in the studies. Also the reimbursement status was not evaluated due to the huge heterogeneity of different products and different product-combinations.

We did not restrict the included studies in this domain by study-methodology, because we wanted to provide a basic overview. For some of the assessment elements we had to exceed the common basic literature search.

References

[1] Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC et al.. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2011;377:658 –666

[2] Ambrosy AP, Fonarow GC, Butler J et al. The global health and economic burden of hospitalizations for heart failure: lessons learned from HHF registries. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:1123–33.

[3] Anker SD, Koehler F, Abraham WT. Telemedicine and remote management of patients with heart failure. Lancet 2011;378:731–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61229-4

[4] Bradley EH, Curry L, Horwitz LI et al.Contemporary evidence about hospitals strategies for reducing 30-day readmission: a national study. J AM Coll Cardiol 2012;60:607-1

[5] Brouwers FP, de Boer RA, van der Harst P, Voors AA, Gansevoort RT, Bakker SJ, Hillege HL, van Veldhuisen DJ, van Gilst WH. Incidence and epidemiology of now onset heart failure with preserved vs. reduced ejection fraction in a community-based cohort: 11-yeaer follow-up of PREVEND. Eur Heart J 2013;34(19):1424-1431.

[6] Bui AL, Horwich TB, Fonarow GC. Epidemiology and risk profile of heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol 2011;8:30–41.

[7] Ceia F, Fonseca C, Mota T et al. Prevalence of chronic heart failure in Southwestern Europe: the EPICA study. Eur J Heart Fail 2002;4:531–9.

[8] Chaudhry SI, McAvay G, Chen S, et al. Risk Factors for Hospital Admission Among Older Persons With Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure: Findings From the Cardiovascular Health Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(6):635-642. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.027.

[9] Chen J, Normand SL, Wang Y, Krumholz HM. National and regional trends in heart failure hospitalization and mortality rates for Medicare beneficiaries, 1998–2008. JAMA 2011;306:1669–1678.

[10] Chronic heart failure: Management of chronic heart failure in adults in primary and secondary care 2012. To be updated in 2015 http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg108/chapter/1-guidance#monitoring

[11] Clark RA, Inglis SC, McAlister FA, Cleland JG, Stewart S. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2007; 334(7600):942.

[12] Cleland JGF, Torabi A, Khan NK. Epidemiology and management of heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction in the aftermath of a myocardial infarction. Heart 2005; 91:ii7-ii13.

[13] Conway A, Inglis SC, Clark RA. Effective technologies for noninvasive remote monitoring in heart failure. Telemed J E Health 2014; 20(6):531-8.

[14] Costa-Lobos A, Riley JP, Cowie MR. Current and future technologies for remote monitoring in cardiology and evidence  from trial data. Future Cardiol 2012; 8(3):425-37.

[15] Currell R, Urquhart C, Wainwright P, Lewis R. Telemedicine versus face to face patient care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD002098. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002098.

[16] Damasceno A, Mayosi BM, Sani M, Ogah OS, Mondo C, Ojji D, et al. The causes, treatment, and outcome of acute heart failure in 1006 Africans from 9 countries. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1386–1394.

[17] DeGeare VS, Boura JA, Grines LL, O’Neill WW, Grines CL. Predictive Value of the Killip Classification in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction. Am J Cardiol 2001;87:1035–1038.

[18] Dellifraine JL, Dansky KH. Home-based telehealth: a review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 2008;14(2):62-66.

[19] Dickstein K, Cohen-Solal A, Filippatos G, McMurray JJ, Ponikowski P, Poole-Wilson PA, Stromberg A, van Veldhuisen DJ, Atar D, Hoes AW, Keren A, Mebazaa A, Nieminen M, Priori SG, Swedberg K. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). Eur J Heart Fail 2008; 29:2388-2442. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehn309.

[20] Dickstein K, Vardas PE, Auricchio A, Daubert JC, Linde C, McMurray J, Ponikowski P, Priori SG, Sutton R, van Veldhuisen DJ. 2010 focused update of ESC Guidelines on device therapy in heart failure: an update of the 2008 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure and the 2007 ESC Guidelines for cardiac and resynchronization therapy. Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association and the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur J Heart Fail 2010;12:1143–1153.

[21] Dubner S, Auricchio A, Steinberg JS et al. ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol 2012; 17(1):36-56.

[22] Dunlay SM, Redfield MM, Weston SA, Therneau TM, Hall Long K, Shah ND, Roger VL. Hospitalizations after heart failure diagnosis a community perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1695–1702.

[23] El-Menyar A, Zubaid M, AlMahmeed W, Sulaiman K, AlNabti A, Singh R, Suwaidi JA. Killip classification in patients with acute coronary syndrome: insight from a multicenter registry. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2012; 30:97–103.

 [24] Chaudry, S.I., Phillips, C.O., Stewart, S.S., Riegel, B.J., Mattera, J.A., Jerant, A.F. & Krumholz, H.M. (2007) Telemonitoring for patients with chronic heart failure: a systematic review. J Card Fail, 13(1), pp.56-62.

[25] Feltner C., Jones C.D., Cene C.W. et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 2014; 160(11):774-84.

[26] Fonarow GC, Abraham WT, Albert NM et al. Association between performance measures and clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized with heart failure. JAMA 2007;297:61-70.

[27] Fonseca C. Diagnosis of heart failure in primary care. Heart Fail Rev 2006;11: 95–107.

[28] Frankenstein L, Remppis A, Fluegel A et al. The association between long-term longitudinal trends in guideline adherence and mortality in relation to age and sex. Eur J Heart Fail 2010;12:574-80.

[29] Gheorghiade M, Vaduganathan M, Fonarow GC, Bonow RO. Rehospitalization for heart failure: Problems and Perspectives. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:391-403.

[30] Giamouzis G, Kalogeropoulos A, Georgiopoulou V, Laskar S, Smith A, Dunbar S, Triposkiadis F, Butler J. Hospitalization Epidemic in Patients with Heart Failure: Risk Factors, Risk Prediction, Knowledge Gaps, and Future Directions. Journal of Cardiac Failure 2011;17:54-75.

[31] Giamouzis G, Mastrogiannis D, Koutrakis K et al. Telemonitoring in chronic heart failure: a systematic review. Cardiol Res Pract 2012; 2012:410820.

[32] Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2014;129:e28–e292.

[33] Gorthi J., Hunter C.B., Mooss A.N., Alla V.M., Hilleman D.E. Reducing heart failure hospital readmissions: A systematic review of disease management programs. Cardiol. Res. 2014; 5(5):126-38.

[34] Gurne O, Conraads V, Missault L et al. A critical review on telemonitoring in heart failure. Acta Cardiol 2012; 67(4):439-44.

[35] Hardisty AR, Peirce SC, Preece A et al. Bridging two translation gaps: a new informatics research agenda for telemonitoring of chronic disease. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80(10):734-44.

[36] Harjola VP, Follath F, Nieminen MS, Brutsaert D, Dickstein K, Drexler H, et al.Characteristics, outcomes, and predictors of mortality at 3 months and 1 year in patients hospitalised for acute heart failure.. European Journal of Heart Failure 2010;12(3): 239–48.

[37] Hasan A, Paul V. Telemonitoring in chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J 2011;32:1457–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr005

[38] Hawkins NM, Petrie MC, Jhund PS, Chalmers GW, Dunn FG, McMurray JJ. Heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: diagnostic pitfalls and epidemiology. Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11:130–139.

[39] Heart failure: preventing disease and death worldwide.  http://www.escardio.org/communities/HFA/Documents/WHFA-whitepaper-15-May-14.pdf?hot=highlighton

[40] Hellermann JP, Goraya TY, Jacobsen SJ, et al. Incidence of heart failure after myocardial infarction: is it changing over time? Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:1101–7.

[41] Hogg K, Swedberg K, McMurray J. Heart failure with preserved left ventricularsystolic function; epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and prognosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:317–327.

[42] Holland R, Battersby J, Harvey I, Lenaghan E, Smith J, Hay L. Systematic review of multidisciplinary interventions in heart failure (Structured abstract). Heart .

[43] Hopp FP, Hogan MM, Woodbridge PA, Lowery JC. The use of telehealth for diabetes management: a qualitative study of telehealth provider perceptions. Implement Sci 2007;2(1):14

[44] NICE Guidance http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG108/Guidance/pdf/English

[45] http://www.escardio.org/communities/HFA/Documents/WHFA-whitepaper-15-May-14.pdf?hot=highlighton

[46] Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, Feldman AM, Francis GS, Ganiats TG, et al. ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline update for the diagnosis and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure): developed in collaboration with the American College of Chest Physicians and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation 2005;112:e154–e235.

[47] Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA et al. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (8):CD007228.

[48] Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Stewart S and Cleland JGF. Which components of heart failure programmes are effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: Abridged Cochrane Review. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2011; 13: 1028-40.

[49] Jaarrsma T, Stromberg A, De Geest S et. al. Heart failure management programmes in Europe. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2006;5:197-205.

[50] Jaarsma T, Halfens R, Huijer Abu-Saad H, et al. Effects of education and support on self-care and resource utilization in patients with heart failure. Eur Heart J 1999;20:673–82.

[51] Jaarsma T., Brons M., Kraai I., Luttik M.L., Stromberg A. Components of heart failure management in home care; A literature review. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2013; 12(3):230-41.

[52] Jerant A.F., Nesbitt T.S. Heart failure disease management incorporating telemedicine: A critical review. J. Clin. Outcomes Manage. 2005; 12(4):207-17.

[53] Jhund PS, Macintyre K, Simpson CR, Lewsey JD, Stewart S, Redpath A, Chalmers JW, Capewell S, McMurray JJ. Long-term trends in first hospitalization for heart failure and subsequent survival between 1986 and 2003: a population study of 5.1 million people. Circulation 2009;119:515–523.

[54] Kalantar-Zadeh K, Block G, Horwich T, et al. Reverse epidemiology of conventional cardiovascular risk factors in patients with chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1439–44.

[55] Kelder JC, Cramer MJ, van Wijngaarden J, van Tooren R, Mosterd A, Moons KG, Lammers JW, Cowie MR, Grobbee DE, Hoes AW. The diagnostic value of physical examination and additional testing in primary care patients with suspected heart failure. Circulation 2011;124:2865–2873.

[56] Kenchaiah S, Evans JC, Levy D, et al. Obesity and the risk of heart failure. N Engl J Med 2003;347:305–13.

[57] Kenchaiah S, Narula J, Vasan RS. Risk factors for heart failure. Med Clin North Am 2004;88:1145–72.

[58] Khatibzadeh  S, Farzadfar F, Oliver J, Ezzati M, Moran A. Worldwide risk factors of heart failure: A systematic review and pooled analysis. International Journal of Cardiology 2013;168:1186-1194.

[59] Khot UN, Jia G, Moliterno DJ, Lincoff AM, Khot MB, Harrington RA, Topol EJ. Prognostic importance of physical examination for heart failure in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: the enduring value of Killip classification. JAMA 2003;290:2174–2181.

[60] Khunti K, Squire I, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ. Accuracy of a 12-lead electrocardiogram in screening patients with suspected heart failure for open access echocardiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Heart Fail 2004;6: 571–576.

[61] Killip T. Epidemiology of congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol 1985;56:2A-6A.

[62] Kitsiou S, Pare G, Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15(7):e150.

[63] Klersy C., De Silvestri A., Gabutti G., Regoli F., Auricchio A. Telemonitoring in chronic heart failure: A meta-analysis. Eur. Heart J. 2009; 30:713.

[64] Koehler F. Telehealth – not for every patient with heart failure. Presentation at the ESC conference Munich 2012. Available at http://congress365.escardio.org/Presentation/Slides/67084.

[65] Komajada M, Follath F, Swedberg K et al. The EuroHeart failure survey programme- a survey on the quality of care among patients with heart failure in Europe. Part 2:treatment. Eur Heart J 2003;24:464-74.

[66] Kwon HS, Cho JH, Kim HS, Song BR, Ko SH, Lee JM, et al. Establishment of blood glucose monitoring system using the internet. Diabetes Care 2004 Feb;27(2):478-483.

[67] Lam CS, Donal E, Kraigher-Krainer E, Vasan RS. Epidemiology and clinical course of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail 2011;13:18–28.

[68] Levy D, Kenchaiah S, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, Kupka MJ, Ho KK, et al.Long-term trends in the incidence of and survival with heart failure. New England Journal of Medicine 2002;347(18): 1397–402.

[69] Levy D, Larson MG, Vasan RS, et al. The progression from hypertension to congestive heart failure. JAMA 1996;275:1557–62.

[70] Lloyd-Jones DM, Larson MG, Leip EP et al. Lifetime risk for developing congestive heart failure: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2002;106:3068–72.

[71] Louis AA, Turner T, Gretton M, Baksh A, Cleland JG. A systematic review of telemonitoring for the management of heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2003; 5(5):583-90.

[72] Madsen LB, Kirkegaard P, Pedersen EB. Health-related quality of life (SF-36) during telemonitoring of home blood pressure in hypertensive patients: a randomized, controlled study. Blood Press 2008;17(4):227-232.

[73] Mady C, Cardoso RH, Barretto AC, da Luz PL, Bellotti G, Pileggi F. Survival and predictors of survival in patients with congestive heart failure due to Chagas' cardiomyopathy. Circulation 1994;90:3098-3102.

[74] Mant J, Doust J, Roalfe A, Barton P, Cowie MR, Glasziou P, Mant D, McManus RJ,Holder R, Deeks J, Fletcher K, Qume M, Sohanpal S, Sanders S, Hobbs FD. Systematicreview and individual patient data meta-analysis of diagnosis of heart failure, with modelling of implications of different diagnostic strategies in primary care. Health Technol Assess 2009;13:1–207, iii.

[75] Maric B, Kaan A, Ignaszewski A, Lear SA. A systematic review of telemonitoring technologies in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2009; 11:506–517.

[76] McMurray JJ, Clinical practice. Systolic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2010;362: 228–238.

[77] McMurray, J.J.V., Adamopoulos, S., Anker, S.D., Auricchio, A., Böhm, M., Dickstein, K., et al. (2012). ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. European Heart Journal 2012;33:1787–1847. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs104

[78] Mendez GF, Cowie MR. The epidemiological features of heart failure in developing countries: a review of the literature. Int J Cardiol 2001;80:213-9.

[79] Metra M, Ponikowski P, Dickstein K, McMurray JJV, Gavazzi A, Bergh CH, Fraser AG, Jaarsma T, Pitsis A, Mohacsi P, Böhm M, Anker S, Dargie H, Brutsaert D, Komajda M, on behalf of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (2007), Advanced chronic heart failure: A position statement from the Study Group on Advanced Heart Failure of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. European Journal of Heart Failure, 9: 684–694. doi: 10.1016/j.ejheart.2007.04.003

[80] Moran AE, Forouzanfar MH, Roth GA, Mensah GA, Ezzati M, Flaxman A, Murray CJ, Naghavi M. The global burden of ischemic heart disease in 1990 and 2010: the global burden of disease 2010 study. Circulation 2014;129:1493–1501.

[81] Mosterd A, Hoes AW, de Bruyne MC, Deckers JW, Linker DT, Hofman A, Grobbee DE Prevalence of heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction in the general population; The Rotterdam Study. Eur Heart J. 1999;20(6):447-55.

[82] Mosterd A, Hoes AW. Clinical epidemiology of heart failure. Heart 2007;93:1137–46.

[83] Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, et al.; on behalf of the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015;131:e29–e322.

[84] Murdoch DR, Love MP, Robb SD, McDonagh TA, Davie AP, Ford I, Capewell S, Morrison CE, McMurray JJ. Importance of heart failure as a cause of death. Changing contribution to overall mortality and coronary heart disease mortality in Scotland 1979–1992. Eur Heart J 1998;19:1829–1835.

[85] Najafi F, Dobson AJ, Hobbs M, Jamrozik K. Temporal trends in the frequency and longer-term outcome of heart failure complicating myocardial infarction. Eur J Heart Fail 2007;9:879–885.

[86] Najafi F, Jamrozik K, Dobson AJ. Understanding the ‘epidemic of heart failure’: a systematic review of trends in determinants of heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11:472-479.

[87] National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (Chronic Heart Failure Guidelines Expert Writing Panel). Guidelines for the prevention, detection and management of chronic heart failure in Australia. Updated October 2011.http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Chronic_Heart_Failure_Guidelines_2011.pdf

[88] National Heart Foundation of Australia. A systematic approach to chronic heart failure care: a consensus statement. Melbourne: National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2013

[89] Oudejans I, Mosterd A, Bloemen JA, Valk MJ, van Velzen E, Wielders JP, Zuithoff NP, Rutten FH, Hoes AW. Clinical evaluation of geriatric outpatients with suspected heart failure: value of symptoms, signs, and additional tests. Eur J Heart Fail 2011;13:518–527.

[90] Pandor A, Thokala P, Gomersall T et al. Home telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes after recent discharge in patients with heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2013; 17(32):1-207, v-vi.

[91] Pare G, Jaana M, Sicotte C. Systematic review of home telemonitoring for chronic diseases: the evidence base. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14(3):269-77.

[92] Pare G, Moqadem K, Pineau G, St-Hilaire C. Clinical effects of home telemonitoring in the context of diabetes, asthma, heart failure and hypertension: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2010; 12(2):e21.

[93] Polisena J, Tran K, Cimon K et al. Home telemonitoring for congestive heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 2010; 16(2):68-76.

[94] Ponikowski P, Anker SD, AlHabib KF, Cowie MR, Force TL, Hu S, Jaarsma T, et al. Heart failure: preventing disease and death worldwide. World Heart Failure Alliance, Global Heart Failure Awareness Programme, Heart Failure Association of the ESC, The European Society of Cardiology 2014. 

[95] Purcell R, McInnes S, Halcomb EJ. Telemonitoring can assist in managing cardiovascular disease in primary care: a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMC Fam Pract 2014; 15:43.

[96] Radhakrishnan K, Jacelon C. Impact of telehealth on patient self-management of heart failure: a review of literature. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2012; 27(1):33-43.

[97] Rickerby J, Woodward J. Patients' experiences and opinions of home blood pressure measurement. J Hum Hypertens 2003 Jul;17(7):495-503.

[98] Sakata Y, Shimokawa H. Epidemiology of heart failure in Asia. Circ J. 2013;77:2209–2217.

[99] Schmidt S, Schuchert A, Krieg T, Oeff M. Home telemonitoring in patients with chronic heart failure: a chance to improve patient care? Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010; 107(8):131-8.

[100] Senni M, Tribouilloy CM, Rodeheffer RJ, Jacobsen SJ, Evans JM, Bailey KR, Redfield MM. Congestive heart failure in the community: trends in incidence and survival in a 10-year period. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:29–34.

[101] Sliwa K, Wilkinson D, Hansen C, Ntyintyane L, Tibazarwa K, Becker A, Stewart S. Spectrum of heart disease and risk factors in a black urban population in South Africa (the Heart of Soweto Study): a cohort study. Lancet 2008;371:915–922.

[102] Sousa C., Leite S., Lagido R., Ferreira L., Silva-Cardoso J., Maciel M.J. Telemonitoring in heart failure: A state-of-the-art review. Rev. Port. Cardiol. 2014.

[103] Stewart S, Ekman I, Ekman T, Oden A, Rosengren A. Population impact of heart failure and the most common forms of cancer: a study of 1 162 309 hospital cases in Sweden (1988 to 2004). Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2010;3:573–580.

[104] Stewart S, MacIntyre K, Hole DJ, Capewell S, McMurray JJ. More ‘malignant’ than cancer? Five-year survival following a first admission for heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2001;3:315- 322.

[105] Suskin N, Sheth T, Negassa A, et al. Relationship of current and past smoking to mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:1677–82.

[106] Thomas JT, Kelly RF, Thomas SJ, Stamos TD, Albasha K, Parrillo JE, Calvin JE. Utility of history, physical examination, electrocardiogram, and chest radiograph for differentiating normal from decreased systolic function in patients with heart failure. Am J Med 2002;112:437–445.

[107] Townsend N, Wickramasinghe K, Bhatnagar P et al. Coronary heart disease statistics (2012 edition). London: British Heart Foundation, 2012. Available from: http://www.bhf.org.uk/publications/viewpublication.

[108] Trappenburg J, Niesink A. de Weert-van Oene GH, van der Zeijden H, van Snippenburg R, Peters A, Lammers JW, Schrijvers AJ. Effects of telemonitoring in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Telemed J E Health 2008;14(2):138-146.

[109] Vähätalo MA, Virtamo HE, Viikari JS, Rönnemaa T. Cellular phone transferred self blood glucose monitoring: Prerequisites for positive outcome. Practical Diabetes International 2004;21(5):192-194.

[110] van Veldhuisen DJ, Braunschweig F, Conraads V et al. Intrathoracic impedance monitoring, audible patient alerts, and outcome in patients with heart failure. Circulation2011;124:1719 –1726.

[111] Vijayaraghavan G, Sivasankaran S. Tropical endomyocardial fibrosis in India: a vanishing disease! Indian J Med Res 2012;136:729–38.

[112] Whellan D.J. Heart failure disease management: Implementation and outcomes. Cardiol. Rev. 2005; 13(5):231-9.

[113] World Health Organization (2015) International Classification of Diseases: ICD-10 Version 2015 [online]. Geneva: author. Available at http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/ [Accessed 28 January 2015].

[114] Xiang R, Li L, Liu SX. Meta-analysis and meta-regression of telehealth programmes for patients with chronic heart failure. J Telemed Telecare 2013; 19(5):249-59.

[115] Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE, Drazner MH, Fonarow GC, Geraci JA, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2013;62(16):e147-e231.

[116] Zannad F, Agrinier N, Alla F. Heart failure burden and therapy 2009; 11:v1-v9.

[117] Zhang Y., Mabote T., Atkin P. et al. Outcome of patients discharged after an episode of worsening heart failure into a heart failure specialist service supported by home telemonitoring. Eur J Heart Fail. Suppl. 2012; 11:S35-S36.

[118] Wootton R. Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management--an evidence synthesis. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18(4):211-20.

[119] MAST REgioNs of Europe WorkINg toGether for HEALTH (Grant Agreement No 250487). D1.12 v1.5 Renewing Health Final Project Report – Public

[120] Heidenreich PA, Trogdon JG, Khavjou OA, Butler J, Dracup K, Ezekowitz MD, Finkelstein AE, et al. Forecasting the Future of Cardiovascular Disease in the United States: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123(8):933-944.

[121] Cowie MR, Wood DA, Coats AJ, Thomson SG, Suresh V, Poole-Wilson PA, et al. Survival of patients with a new diagnosis of heart failure: a population based study. Heart 2000;83:505–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/heart.83.5.505

[122] Desai AS. The three-phase terrain of heart failure readmissions. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5(4):398-400.

[123] Nichols M, Townsend N, Scarborough P, Rayner M. Cardiovascular disease in Europe 2014: epidemiological update. Eur Heart J. 2014 Nov 7;35(42):2929.

[124] Townsend N, Nichols M, Scarborough P, Rayner M. Cardiovascular disease in Europe - epidemiological update 2015. Eur Heart J. 2015 Oct 21;36(40):2696-705.

[125] Hindricks G, Taborsky M, Glikson M, et al. Implant-based multiparameter telemonitoring of patients with heart failure (IN-TIME):a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2014; 384: 583-590.

 

[126] Parthiban N, Esterman A, Mahajan R, Twomey DJ, Pathak RV, Lau DH, et al.  Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Ju<n 23;65(24):2591-600

[127] Slotwiner D, et al  HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm. 2015 Jul;12(7):e69-100

 

 

Appendices

The used strategies described as telemonitoring for the European studies in the used reviews

Study

country

found where?

who?

what?

transfer mode

education?

Aguado 2010

Spain

Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team

multidisciplinary team care plan educational strategies optimized treatments increased access to care

 

yes

Aimonino 2007

Italy

Jaarsma 2013

physician-led

multidisciplinary team educational strategies optimized treatments increased access to care

hospital-at-home-service

yes

Aldamiz-Echevarria 2007

Spain

Feltner 2014

 

home-visiting programmes

 

 

Angermann 2011

Germany

Pandor 2013

 

symptoms and medication monitoring

telephone

yes

Antonicelli 2008

Italy

Conway 2014; Gorthi 2014; Jaarsma 2013; Pandor 2013; Xiang 2013

multidisciplinary team

BP, HR, weight, 24h urine output, and ECG; care plan educational strategies optimized treatments increased access to care; telemonitoring; Disease Management Programmes

non-invasive Telemonitoring

 

Antonicelli 2010

Italy

Giamouzis 2012

 

weight, blood pressure, heart rate, 24h urine, weekly ECG

telephone

 

Balk 2008

NL

Conway 2014; Gorthi 2014; Jaarsma 2013;  Xiang 2013

multidisciplinary team

care plan educational strategies increased access to care; scale, medication, dispenser; Disease Management Programmes; Teleguidance

non-invasive Telemonitoring

 

Barlow 2007

UK

Schmidt 2010

 

home-telemonitoring

 

 

Blue 2001

Scotland

Whellan 2005, Jerant 2005, Gorthi 2014, Jaarsma 2013, Xiang 2013

multidisciplinary team, nurse-led

care plan educational strategies optimized treatments, case management, DMP

 

yes

Bondmass 2001

Europe

Jerant 2005

multidisciplinary team

 

telephone

 

Boyne 2011

NL

Xiang 2013

 

scale, pulse monitoring

 

 

Brotons 2009

Spain

Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team

multidisciplinary team care plan educational strategies optimized treatments increased access to care

 

yes

Cabezas 2006

Spain

Feltner 2014

 

structured  support

telephone

 

Capomolla 2002

Italy

Jerant 2005, Gorthi 2014, Whellan 2005

cardiologist

Disease Management Programmes Using Outpatient Visits

telephone

 

Capomolla 2004

Italy

Conway 2014, Clark 2007, Pandor 2013, Gorthi 2014, Xiang 2013

 

weight, systolic BP, HR, vital signs (including weight, systolic blood pressure, heart rate), DMP

interactive voice response

 

Cleland 2005

Europe, Germany, NL, UK

Conway 2014, Jaarsma 2013, Chaudry 2007, Xiang 2013, Giamouzis 2012, Gorthi 2014, Pandor 2013, Clark 2007

nurse, multidisciplinary team

education and monitoring; weight, BP, and ECG; increased access to care;weight

telephone

yes

Cline 1998

Sweden

Gorthi 2014, Whellan 2005

cardiologist

Disease Management Programmes Using Outpatient Visits

 

 

Dar 2009

UK

Feltner 2014, Giamouzis 2012, Gorthi 2014, Jaarsma 2013, Pandor 2013, Xiang 2013

multidisciplinar team

weight, blood pressure, heart rate, pulse oximetry;  care plan optimized treatments educational strategies increased access to care; DMP

telephone

 

de la Porte 2007

NL

Gorthi 2014

 

Disease Management Programmes Using Outpatient Visits

 

 

de Lusignan 2001

UK

Jerant 2005, Conway 2014, Clark 2007, Xiang 2013

 

multidisciplinary clinic; pulse, BP, weight; vital signs (pulse, blood pressure, weight) and clinical status;

interactive videoconferencing, transtelephonic monitoring

 

Del Sindaco 2007

Italy

Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team

care plan optimized treatments educational strategies increased access to care, hybrid DM programme

 

yes

Dendale 2011

Belgium

Pandor 2013

 

weight, blood pressure, heart rate; scale, pulse

cell phone transmission

 

Ekman 1998

Sweden

Jerant 2005, Feltner 2014, Gorthi 2014, Whellan 2005

Primary care physician

outpatient clinic-based interventions

telephone

 

Giordano 2009

Italy

Conway 2014; Giamouzis 2012; Gorthi 2014, Jaarsma 2013, Xiang 2013

multidisciplinary team

one-led ECG, weight, blood pressure, ECG, drug dosage, education and monitoring; adherence to diet and treatment, monitoring of symptoms, control of fluid retention, and daily physical activity; multidisciplinary team care plan optimized treatments educational strategies increased access to care;

telephone

yes

Holland 2007

UK

Feltner 2014, Gorthi 2014, Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team

educational strategies increased access to care, home-visiting programmes, Disease Management Programmes

 

yes

Jaarsma 1999

NL

Feltner 2014, Gorthi 2014, Jaarsma 2013, Whellan 2005, Jerant 2005

multidisciplinary team, nurse-led

Disease Management Programmes Using Home Visits

 

yes

Jolly 2009

UK

Xiang 2013

 

scale monitoring

 

 

Kielblock 2007

Germany

Conway 2014, Pandor 2013, Xiang 2013

 

weight, scale telemonitoring

 

 

Klersy 2009

Italy

Schmidt 2010, Sousa 2014

 

technology assisted strategies

telephone, technology (?)

 

Koehler 2011

Germany

Giamouzis 2012, Gorthi 2014

 

weight, blood pressure, ECG, drug dosage; Disease Management Programmes

cell phone transmission

 

Koronowski 1995

Israel

Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team

intensive home-care surveillance

 

 

Landolina 2012

Italy

Gorthi 2014

 

Disease Management Programmes Using Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring

 

 

Ledwidge 2002

Ireland

Gorthi 2014

 

Disease Management Programmes Using Outpatient Visits

 

 

Linne 2006

Sweden

Feltner 2014

 

 

 

yes

Lynga 2012

Sweden

Xiang 2013

 

scale monitoring

 

 

MacDonald 2002

Ireland

Whellan 2005

cardiologist

clinic follow up, cardiologist supervision

 

 

Martinez-Fernandez 2006

Spain

Schmidt 2010

 

home monitoring

 

 

Massie 2001

Italy

Jerant 2005

multidisciplinary team

standard telephone calls, transtelephonic monitoring

telephone

 

McDonald 2001

Ireland

Feltner 2014

 

outpatient clinic-based interventions

 

 

McDonald 2002

Ireland

Feltner 2014,Jerant 2005

multidisciplinary team

outpatient clinic-based interventions

telephone

 

Mendoza 2009

Spain

Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team

increased access to care, hospital at home model

 

 

Mortara 2004

Europe

Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team 

optimized treatments educational strategies increased access to care

 

yes

Mortara 2009

Europe, Italy, UK, Poland

Conway 2014, Gorthi 2014, Giamouzis 2012, Xiang 2013

 

education and monitoring; weight, systolic BP, HR, and symptoms, respiration rate, and physical activity; weight, BP, and symptoms; asthenia score, oedema score, changes in therapy, blood results;

telephone call, interactive voice response

 

Nucifora 2006

Italy

Feltner 2014

 

 

 

yes

Peters-Klimm 2010

Germany

Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team

 care plan  educational strategies increased access to care, HF case management

 

yes

Piotrowicz 2010

Poland

Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team

care plan educational strategies increased access to care; new home TeleCardia Rehab programme

 

yes

Robinson 2004

Germany

Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team

care plan increased access to care, telehomecare

 

 

Rondinini 2008

Italy

Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team, domiciliary-based nurse-led strategy

care plan educational strategies increased access to care

 

yes

Scherr 2009

Austria

Giamouzis 2012, Pandor 2013, Xiang 2013

 

weight, blood pressure, heart rate, dosage of medication; scale, medication dispenser, pulse monitoring

cell phone transmission

 

Schmidt 2007

Germany

Schmidt 2010

 

telemedicine

 

 

Stromberg 2003

Sweden

Feltner 2014, Gorthi 2014, Jerant 2005

multidisciplinary clinic

Disease Management programmes Using Outpatient Visits

telephone

 

Thompson 2005

UK

Feltner 2014, Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team

optimized treatments educational strategies increased access to care, home-visiting programmes ,

 

 

TIM-HF 2011, Koehler 2010

Germany

Sousa 2014

 

TM (daily ECG, blood pressure, weight) sent to telemedical centers

 

 

Van Veldhuisen 2011

NL

Gorthi 2014

 

Disease Management programmes Using Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring

 

 

Vavouranakis 2003

Greece

Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team

optimized treatments educational strategies increased access to care

 

 

Villani 2007

Italy

Xiang 2013

 

scale, symptoms, pulse, urine output

 

 

Wierzchowiecki 2006

Poland

Jaarsma 2013

multidisciplinary team

care plan optimized treatments educational strategies increased access to care

 

 

Zugck 2008

Germany

Xiang 2013

 

scale, ECG, SPO2 monitoring

 

 


Description and technical characteristics of technology

Authors: Ingrid Wilbacher, Valentina Prevolnik Rupel

Summary

TEC1: Who manufactures Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases?

We did not answer this question in the TEC domain. Please find the overlapping results in CUR_ 15

TEC2: What kind of qualification and quality assurance processes are needed for the use or maintenance of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases?

The answer was created out of statements in nine of the included studies from the general literature search and an additional unstructured search in google for more information.

The studies providing information about the staff qualification mainly content of

-management according to a multidisciplinary/ physicians care plan

-provision of monitoring and reaction in case of abnormities by nurses

The results of the survey with 15 experts in Germany {1} provide a conclusive overview of expected skills:

-methodological competence (analytical thinking, ability of reflexion, autonomy, linguistic, anamnestic competence, ability of abstraction, ability of reaction)

-social competence (empathy, communication skills, politeness, social sensitivity, authority, motivation skills, kindness)

-professionality (basic medical knowledge, secure technical skills, practical medicinal experience, knwoledge of basic health legislation, knwoledge about the health system, psychological motivational skills, knowledge in quality management)

-personal competence (self-knowledge, psychical capacity, steadiness, distress-resistancy, learning motivation, professional distance, IT-skills)

Structural quality:

-How telemonitoring or telemedicine is implemented and to whom varies (see also CUR and LEG domain).

Process quality:

-The quality assurance seems to be lacking.

 

TEC3: What kind of training and information should be provided for the patient who uses Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases, or for his family?

In the ten included studies for this question the following training/ patient education aspects were adressed:

1. General heart failure education

-detection of deterioration

-use of medication

-diet

-physcial activity/ exercise training

-Smoking cessation

2.telemonitoring specific training

-training to use devices (technically)

-training to manage the information (empowerment and self-care), interpret the vital signals and efficiently utilize them

3.Other training/ education

-coping with difficult emotions

-relaxation and cognitive symptom management techniques

-lifestyle aspects: alcohol intake, sexual activity

-necessity of vaccinations

-capabilities of patients to travel or work

-coping with individual problems, often related to comorbid conditions

-training of relatives/ caregivers

How is the training suggested to be provided:

-could be carried out in groups of 10-15 people, where patients can assist and help each other

-through leaflets and online manuals, depending on the service

TEC4: What information of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases should be provided for patients outside the target group and the general public?

Information to patients outside the target group and the general public should therefore focus on the reasons and the explanaition for inclusion or exclusion of people/ patients for access to structured telephone support. People should be informed that structured telephone support is not suitable for all individuals nor is it appropriate under all medical circumstances

TEC5: What is Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases and the comparator(s)?

 

The non-invasive telemedicine/telemonitoring contains the following aspects (seperately or combined):

-remote access control (transfer of physiological data)

-nurse-led management program after hospital discharge

-disease management program (including cardiologists, nurses, GPs)

-patient education

-regular outpatient contact

-self-care supportive strategies

-case management interventions

-monitoring and (daily) transmission of vital parameters and weight

-telephone-follow up

-home-visits

-remote consultation with a nurse by video-camera

-weigh daily and respond to questions concerning heart failure symptoms

-daily data-transfer to a secure Internet site

-response to questions from a computerized interactive voice response system

-medication management (adherence),

-fluid management (adherence)

-problem solving

-exercise recommendation

-diet adeherence

-goal setting

-structured telephone support

-human-to-human contact (HH) or human-to-machine interface (HM)

 

Usual care

-standard post-discharge care without intensified attendance at cardiology clinics

-clinic-based CHF disease management programme

-home visiting

There is no consensus definition of the fundamental terms utilized.

There is also an „upcoming“ topic called mHealth meaning mobile health through mobile phones and similar devices using software applications (apps). There is increasing interest on mhealth, especially with the hope of easy and equal acces for information, tele-diagnostic or –care aspects and data collection and use for health purpose. Some major aspects are to be worked out (like network issues, data security, information quality, legal and regulatory aspects etc.) and are aim within the EU horizon 2020.

TEC6: In what context and level of care are Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases and the comparator used?

Conclusion: telemedicine/ telemonitoring interventions can be used in all different settings (outpatient, outpatient clinic, hospital based, home, mixed setting), they are mainly provided in outpatient organisations, the most important part ist the additional setting at the patients‘ home.

TEC7: Are the reference values or cut-off points clearly established?

The reference values for heart failure diagnostic (- monitoring) are mainly a) mortality and b) hospitalisation (rate).

There are more clearly established results for the diagnostic accuracy within monitoring the implantable device-based indicators, alone or combined with weight and symptoms.

 

The reference values used for telemedical approaches with structured interviews are more or less standardized (like in www. klinik.uni-wuerzburg.de/medizin1/inh-heartnetcarehf { Rec #: 200}, but there is also a subjective category which cannot be clear established, like „listening into a patients‘ kind of reporting“, „detecting differences within a knwon patient“, that require a human sense approach.

The reference value of „mortality“ and „hospitalisation“ requires a competent listening/ monitoring person who decides when the emergency chain has to be initiated.

TEC8: What material investments are needed to use Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases?

Despite the implantable devices, further materials are needed for telemonitoring/ telemedicine:

Patients home

-patient near unit (funk transmission)

-telephone/ cell phone with telephone line

-scale

-camera

-PC with internet

Data transfer

-Secure data sending line (internet)

-Telephone line

-Secured technical interoperability/ adaptiveness

Receiver of data/ care center/ nurse

-PC, software

-Telephone

-Usual office infrastructure

-Ev. car for home visits

There is a need for further research in knowledge representation, and the used data analysis methods. Current barriers for adaptation include uncertainty about the response protocols, payment systems, and prescribing protocols. {29}

TEC9: What kind of special premises are needed to use Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases and the comparator(s)?

No special premises were found in the literature.

TEC10: What equipment and supplies are needed to use Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases and the comparator?

We provide the answer within TEC 8

TEC11: What kind of data and records are needed to monitor the use of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases and the comparator?

The needs for a sustainable telemonitoring include

-Qualified professionals (human resources) doing the monitoring/ statistics/emergency prioritisation

-Economic resources to provide the infrastructure for data transmission (GSM network, analogue phoneline, internet, software) and telephone support, documentation, home visits, etc.

-Transparent selection of patients who benefit best

TEC12: What kind of registers are needed to monitor the use Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases and comparator?

There are no specific registries to monitor or register the use of structured telephone support  for heart failure specifically. If a national registry is already existing and/or the EU registry is used/ planned to be used there needs to be no further register installed for telemonitoring in heart failure patients.

The telemonitoring aspects – at least „on telemonitoring yes/no“, what kind of telemonitoring is used, entry-exit date – can be easily added into an existing registry.

Introduction

In this domain we aim to explain what is meant by „structured telephone support (STS) within telemonitoring“, to detect whether „telemedicine“ means the same as „telemonitoring“or something different, what wordings and explanations are currently in use and what do they mean.  We aim to describe the forms of existing telemonitoring technologies, their use and functioning as well as major issues that stem from the use of these technologies. Also exsposed are the preconditions for the use of telemonitoring, educational needs on the side of patients and families as well as professional teams. Regarding the use of telemonitoring all forms of telemonitoring devices are categorized according to their settings etc. The reference values that trigger the interventions are looked into and material investments as well as necessary equipment and supplies for the use of telemonitoring by STS are researched. The registers are listed to monitor the use of the technology and comparator. 

Methodology

Frame

The collection scope is used in this domain.

TechnologyStructured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure
Description

Telemonitoring via structured telephone support with focus on patient reported signs (symptoms of congestion, peripheral edema, pulmonary congestion, dyspnea on exertion, abdominal fullness), medication adherence, physiological data (like heart rate, blood pressure, body weight – measured by the patient with home-device), activity level; done in regular schedules using risk stratification (with fixed algorithm by call center staff or experience-based by specialized staff); done by dedicated call centers, center-based staff, nurses, AND reduced visits to a GP or heart center

Intended use of the technologyPrevention

Remote transmission of information to alleviate symptoms, relieve suffering and allow timely treatment for chronic heart failure

Target condition
Chronic cardiac failure
Target condition description

Heart failure is a condition in which the heart has lost the ability to pump enough blood to the body's tissues. With too little blood being delivered, the organs and other tissues do not receive enough oxygen and nutrients to function properly.

Target population

Target population sex: Any. Target population age: adults and elderly. Target population group: Patients who have the target condition.

Target population description

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF; defined as I50 http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/I00-I99/I30-I52/I50-/I50 ) AND hospitalization due to heart failure at least once  AND without implanted devices

ComparisonUsual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist or patient has to move (≠ at home)
Description

Usual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist; patient has to move (≠ at home)

Outcomes

Mortality (disease specific and all cause) progressions, admissions, re-admissions, QoL or HRQoL, harms

Assessment elements

TopicIssue RelevantResearch questions or rationale for irrelevance
A0022OtherWho manufactures the technology?yesWho manufactures structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
B0012Training and information needed to use the technologyWhat kind of qualification and quality assurance processes are needed for the use or maintenance of the technology?yesWhat kind of qualification and quality assurance processes are needed for the use or maintenance of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
B0014Training and information needed to use the technologyWhat kind of training and information should be provided for the patient who uses the technology, or for his family?yesWhat kind of training and information should be provided for the patient who uses Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure, or for his family?
B0015Training and information needed to use the technologyWhat information of the technology should be provided for patients outside the target group and the general public?yesWhat information of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure should be provided for patients outside the target group and the general public?
B0013Training and information needed to use the technologyWhat kind of training and information is needed for the personnel/carer using this technology?yes
B0001Features of the technologyWhat is this technology and the comparator(s)?yesWhat is Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator(s)?
B0005Features of the technologyIn what context and level of care are the technology and the comparator used?yesIn what context and level of care are Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator used?
B0018Features of the technologyAre the reference values or cut-off points clearly established?yesAre the reference values or cut-off points clearly established?
B0002Features of the technologyWhat is the approved indication and claimed benefit of the technology and the comparator(s)?noThis is overlapping with the CUR domain and will be answered there. The indication is selected within the PICO definition
B0003Features of the technologyWhat is the phase of development and implementation of the technology and the comparator(s)?noThis overlaps with the "management" in the CUR domain and will be answered there
B0004Features of the technologyWho performs or administers the technology and the comparator(s)?noThis overlaps with the "management" in the CUR domain and will be answered there
B0007Investments and tools required to use the technologyWhat material investments are needed to use the technology?yesWhat material investments are needed to use Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
B0008Investments and tools required to use the technologyWhat kind of special premises are needed to use the technology and the comparator(s)?yesWhat kind of special premises are needed to useStructured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator(s)?
B0009Investments and tools required to use the technologyWhat equipment and supplies are needed to use the technology and the comparator?yesWhat equipment and supplies are needed to use Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator?
B0010Investments and tools required to use the technologyWhat kind of data and records are needed to monitor the use of the technology and the comparator?yesWhat kind of data and records are needed to monitor the use of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator?
B0011Investments and tools required to use the technologyWhat kind of registers are needed to monitor the use the technology and comparator?yesWhat kind of registers are needed to monitor the use Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and comparator?

Methodology description

Domain frame

To answer the questions in the assessment elements we mainly used the basic literature search provided for the whole project. For some answers additional handsearch was used, and for some AEs we did a google search in other resources than scientific literature (i.e. for TEC_11).

The extracted studies and the reason for not using them is provided in the annex 1 at the end of the domain report. The issue (research question) specific methods will be reported later in the methods field of the result card.

Information sources

Common basic project literature search

Handsearch (additional reference found/ provided)

Google (for registries)

Quality assessment tools or criteria

We did not rate the quality of the included studies, but mentioned whether the information was extracted from systematic reviews or single studies (i.e. RCTs) or other resources.

Analysis and synthesis

Two investigators divided the amount of studies by alphabeth, each scanned the half of the studies and double-checked the other.

Result cards

Other

Result card for TEC1: "Who manufactures structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?"

View full card
TEC1: Who manufactures structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Training and information needed to use the technology

Result card for TEC2: "What kind of qualification and quality assurance processes are needed for the use or maintenance of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?"

View full card
TEC2: What kind of qualification and quality assurance processes are needed for the use or maintenance of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

Result card for TEC3: "What kind of training and information should be provided for the patient who uses Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure, or for his family?"

View full card
TEC3: What kind of training and information should be provided for the patient who uses Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure, or for his family?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for TEC4: "What information of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure should be provided for patients outside the target group and the general public?"

View full card
TEC4: What information of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure should be provided for patients outside the target group and the general public?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Features of the technology

Result card for TEC5: "What is Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator(s)?"

View full card
TEC5: What is Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator(s)?
Method
Result
Comment

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for TEC6: "In what context and level of care are Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator used?"

View full card
TEC6: In what context and level of care are Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator used?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Completely

Result card for TEC7: "Are the reference values or cut-off points clearly established?"

View full card
TEC7: Are the reference values or cut-off points clearly established?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Completely

Investments and tools required to use the technology

Result card for TEC8: "What material investments are needed to use Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?"

View full card
TEC8: What material investments are needed to use Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Completely

Result card for TEC9: "What kind of special premises are needed to useStructured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator(s)?"

View full card
TEC9: What kind of special premises are needed to useStructured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator(s)?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Result card for TEC10: "What equipment and supplies are needed to use Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator?"

View full card
TEC10: What equipment and supplies are needed to use Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Result card for TEC11: "What kind of data and records are needed to monitor the use of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator?"

View full card
TEC11: What kind of data and records are needed to monitor the use of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and the comparator?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for TEC12: "What kind of registers are needed to monitor the use Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and comparator?"

View full card
TEC12: What kind of registers are needed to monitor the use Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and comparator?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Discussion

We found a wide range of interpretation of what is meant by telemonitoring/ telemedicine in the included literature. There are variations  of telemonitoring like disease management programs, hospital based external monitoring structure, data-transfer and reaction by staff and/or device, structured or unstructured telephone support and involvement of professionals (i.e. cardiologist, nurse, GP).

The non-invasive monitoring, which includes structured telephone support  gives the impression to be often implemented from „bottom up“ with therefore different solutions, contents and settings – as appropriate to the innovative bottom-up idea.

There is a need of  a structured care outside the hospital for patients who do not need continous in-hospital care but should be monitored for a sudden deterioration or emergency-situation.. The solution of a high-frequent GP contact is not feasible as the number of control visits would increase enormously due to increase in chronic diseases.  

The idea of a monitoring at distance saves time and efforts, but the solution seems to lack in structural and surrounding details like „whom to involve“, „how to train whom“ and „what should be done with the data“ (data security, data secure transfer, transmisson line system, etc.), influencing the studies outcomes.

We did not restrict the included studies in this TEC domain by study-methodology, because we wanted to have a valid description of projects and implemented system approaches for telemonitoring.

For structured telephone support it has to be taken into account

  • Who calls whom when for what

  • Who collects what data for what purpose

  • What happens with the data

  • Who reacts on the collected information and when and how

  • Is there a need of technical support or function maintainance

  • Is the target group of heart failure patients ready for the planned intervention (i.e. what kind of telephone are they able to use)

References

[1] Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC, on behalf of the CHAMPION trial study group. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;377:658-666. in Dubner S, Auricchio A, Steinberg JS et al. ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol 2012; 17(1):36-56.

[2] AHRQ Hersh WR, Hickam DH, Severance SM, Dana TL, Krages KP, Helfand M. Telemedicine for the Medicare Population: Update. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 131 (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0024.) AHRQ Publication No. 06-E007. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. February 2006.

[3] Barth V. A nurse-managed discharge program for congestive heart failure patients: outcomes and costs. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 2001;(6):436–43. CN-00773514. in Feltner C., Jones C.D., Cene C.W. et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 2014; 160(11):774-84.

[4] Bourge RC, Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Aaron MF, Aranda JM Jr, Magalski A, Zile MR, Smith AL, Smart FW, O’Shaughnessy MA, Jessup ML, Sparks B, Naftel DL, Stevenson LW; COMPASS-HF Study Group. Randomized controlled trial of an implantable continous hemodynamic monitor in patients with advanced heart failure: the COMPASS-HF study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51: 1073-9. in Gurne O, Conraads V, Missault L et al. A critical review on telemonitoring in heart failure. Acta Cardiol 2012; 67(4):439-44.

[5] Casas J.P., Kwong J., Ebrahim S. Telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: not ready for prime time. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 2011:ED000008.

[6] Chaudhry SI, Phillips CO, Stewart SS et al. Telemonitoring for patients with chronic heart failure: a systematic review. J Card Fail 2007; 13(1):56-62.

[7] Ciere Y, Cartwright M, Newman SP. A systematic review of the mediating role of knowledge, self-efficacy and self-care behaviour in telehealth patients with heart failure. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18(7):384-91.

[8] Clark A.L. Heart failure. Arch. Cardiol. Mex. 2011; 81(4):383-90.

[9] Clark RA, Inglis SC, McAlister FA, Cleland JG, Stewart S. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2007; 334(7600):942.

[10] Clark R.A., Conway A., Inglis S.C., Horton-Breshears M., Cleland J.G.F. Not all systematic reviews are systematic: A meta-review of the quality of current systematic reviews and meta-analyses for remote monitoring in heart failure. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2013; 12:S229.

[11] Clarke M, Shah A, Sharma U. Systematic review of studies on telemonitoring of patients with congestive heart failure: a meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 2011; 17(1):7-14.

[12] Cleland J.G.F., Coletta A.P., Buga L. et al. Clinical trials update from the American Heart Association Meeting 2010: EMPHASIS-HF, RAFT, TIM-HF, Tele-HF, ASCEND-HF, ROCKET-AF, and PROTECT. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2011; 13(4):460-5.

[13] Cleland JG, Coletta AP, Clark AL. Clinical trials update from the joint European Society and World Congress of Cardiology meeting: PEP-CHF, ACCLAIM and the HHH study. Eur J Heart Fail 2006; 8(6):658-61.

[14] Cleland JG, Louis AA, Rigby AS, Janssens U, Balk HM; TEN-HMS Investigators. Noninvasive home telemonitoring for patients with heart failure at high risk of recurrent admission and death: the Trans-European Network-Home-Care Management System (TEN-HMS) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:1654-64. in Gurne O, Conraads V, Missault L et al. A critical review on telemonitoring in heart failure. Acta Cardiol 2012; 67(4):439-44.

[15] Costa-Lobos A, Riley JP, Cowie MR. Current and future technologies for remote monitoring in cardiology and evidence  from trial data. Future Cardiol 2012; 8(3):425-37.

[16] Comprehensive care in heart failure. Evid.-Based Healthc. Public Health 2005; 9(6):391-5.

[17] Conway A, Inglis SC, Clark RA. Effective technologies for noninvasive remote monitoring in heart failure. Telemed J E Health 2014; 20(6):531-8.

[18] Currell R, Urquhart C, Wainwright P, Lewis R. Telemedicine versus face to face patient care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD002098. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD002098.

[19] Dar O, Riley J, Chapman C, Dubrey SW, Morris S, Rosen SD, Roughton M, Cowie MR. A randomized trial of home monitoring in a typical elderly heart failure population in North West London: results of the Home-HF study. Eur J Heart Fail 2009; 11:319-25. in Gurne O, Conraads V, Missault L et al. A critical review on telemonitoring in heart failure. Acta Cardiol 2012; 67(4):439-44.

[20] Dubner S, Auricchio A, Steinberg JS et al. ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol 2012; 17(1):36-56.

[21] Duffy JR, Hoskins LM, Chen MC. Nonpharmacological strategies for improving heart failure outcomes in the community: a systematic review. J Nurs Care Qual 2004; 19(4):349-60.

[22] Feltner C., Jones C.D., Cene C.W. et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 2014; 160(11):774-84.

[23] Farner A, Gibson OJ, Tarassenko L, Neil A. A systematic review of telemedicine interventions to support blood glucose self-monitoring in diabetes. Diabet Med 22 (10) (2005) 1372-1378. In Hardisty AR, Peirce SC, Preece A et al. Bridging two translation gaps: a new informatics research agenda for telemonitoring of chronic disease. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80(10):734-44.

[24] Fye WB. Cardiology workforce: there’s already a shortage, and it’s getting worse!J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:2077–2079. in Whellan D.J. Heart failure disease management: Implementation and outcomes. Cardiol. Rev. 2005; 13(5):231-9.

[25] Giamouzis G, Mastrogiannis D, Koutrakis K et al. Telemonitoring in chronic heart failure: a systematic review. Cardiol Res Pract 2012; 2012:410820.

[26] Gorthi J., Hunter C.B., Mooss A.N., Alla V.M., Hilleman D.E. Reducing heart failure hospital readmissions: A systematic review of disease management programs. Cardiol. Res. 2014; 5(5):126-38.

[27] Gurne O, Conraads V, Missault L et al. A critical review on telemonitoring in heart failure. Acta Cardiol 2012; 67(4):439-44.

[28] Grustam AS, Severens JL, van Nijnatten J, Koymans R, Vrijhoef HJ. Cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions for chronic heart failure patients: a literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014; 30(1):59-68.

[29] Hardisty AR, Peirce SC, Preece A et al. Bridging two translation gaps: a new informatics research agenda for telemonitoring of chronic disease. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80(10):734-44.

[30] Hasan A, Paul V. Telemonitoring in chronic haéart failure. Novel devices. European Heart Journal (2011) 32. 1457-1464. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr005.

[31] Holland R, Battersby J, Harvey I, Lenaghan E, Smith J, Hay L. Systematic review of multidisciplinary interventions in heart failure (Structured abstract).

[32] Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Stewart S, Cleland JG. Which components of heart failure programmes are effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: Abridged Cochrane Review. Eur J Heart Fail 2011; 13(9):1028-40.

[33] Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA et al. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 8, CD007228 (2010). in  Costa-Lobos A, Riley JP, Cowie MR. Current and future technologies for remote monitoring in cardiology and evidence  from trial data. Future Cardiol 2012; 8(3):425-37.

[34] Inglis S.C., Clark R.A., Cleland J.G.F., McAlister F., Stewart S. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programs for patients with chronic heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2008; (3).

[35] Institute of Medicine Glossary and AbbreviationsIn: Field MJ, editor. Telemedicine: A guide to assessing telecommunications in health care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996. pp. 239-252. in Pare G, Jaana M, Sicotte C. Systematic review of home telemonitoring for chronic diseases: the evidence base. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14(3):269-77.

[36] Jaana M, Paré G, Sicotte C. Home telemonitoring for respiratory conditions: a systematic review. Am J Manag Care 15 (2009) 313-320. In Hardisty AR, Peirce SC, Preece A et al. Bridging two translation gaps: a new informatics research agenda for telemonitoring of chronic disease. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80(10):734-44.

[37] Jaarsma T., Brons M., Kraai I., Luttik M.L., Stromberg A. Components of heart failure management in home care; A literature review. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2013; 12(3):230-41.

[38] Jackson CI, Bolen S, Brancati FL, Batts-Turner ML, Gary TL. A systematic revie of interactive computer-assisted technology in diabetes care. Interactive informations technology in diabetes care. J Gen Intern Med 21 (2) (2006) 105-110. In Hardisty AR, Peirce SC, Preece A et al. Bridging two translation gaps: a new informatics research agenda for telemonitoring of chronic disease. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80(10):734-44.

[39] Jerant A.F., Nesbitt T.S. Heart failure disease management incorporating telemedicine: A critical review. J. Clin. Outcomes Manage. 2005; 12(4):207-17.

[40] Klersy C., De Silvestri A., Gabutti G., Regoli F., Auricchio A. Telemonitoring in chronic heart failure: A meta-analysis. Eur. Heart J. 2009; 30:713.

[41] Koehler F, Winkler S, Schieber M, et al. Impact of remote telemedical management on mortality and hospitalizations in ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure: the telemedical interventional monitoring in heart failure study. Circulation. 2011;123(17):1873–1880. in Giamouzis G, Mastrogiannis D, Koutrakis K et al. Telemonitoring in chronic heart failure: a systematic review. Cardiol Res Pract 2012; 2012:410820.

[42] Krumholz HM, Amatruda J, Smith GL, Mattera JA, Roumanis SA, Radford MJ, Crombie P, Vaccarino V. Randomized trial of an eductaion and support intervention to prevent readmission of patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39:83-9.  in Gurne O, Conraads V, Missault L et al. A critical review on telemonitoring in heart failure. Acta Cardiol 2012; 67(4):439-44.

[43] Laramee AS, Levinsky SK, Sargent J, et al. Case management in a heterogeneous congestive heart failure population: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2003 Apr 14;163(7):809–17. Epub: 2003/04/16.  in Feltner C., Jones C.D., Cene C.W. et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 2014; 160(11):774-84.

[44] Louis A, Turner T, Gretton M, Baksh A, Cleland J. A systematic review of telemonitoring for the management of heart failure Eur J Heart Fail 2003;5:583-590. in Pare G, Jaana M, Sicotte C. Systematic review of home telemonitoring for chronic diseases: the evidence base. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14(3):269-77.

[45] Maric B, Kaan A, Ignaszewski A, Lear SA. A systematic review of telemonitoring technologies in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2009; 11(5):506-17.

[46] Maric B, Kaan A, Ignaszewski A, Lear SA. A systematic review of telemonitoring technologies in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 11 (May (5)) (2009) 506-517. In {29}

[47] MAST REgioNs of Europe WorkINg toGether for HEALTH (Grant Agreement No 250487). D1.12 v1.5 Renewing Health Final Project Report

[48] May C, Mort M, Mair F, Williams T. Factors affecting the adoption of telehealthcare in the United Kingdom: the prolicy context and the problem of evidence. Health Informatics J 7 (September (3-4)) (2001) 131-134. In Hardisty AR, Peirce SC, Preece A et al. Bridging two translation gaps: a new informatics research agenda for telemonitoring of chronic disease. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80(10):734-44.

[49] Meystre S. The current state of telemonitoring: A comment on the literature Telemedicine and E-Health 2005;11:63-69.  in Pare G, Jaana M, Sicotte C. Systematic review of home telemonitoring for chronic diseases: the evidence base. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14(3):269-77.

[50] Mosterd A, Hoes AW. Clinical epidemiology of heart failure. Heart 93 (September (9)) (2007) 1137-1146. In Hardisty AR, Peirce SC, Preece A et al. Bridging two translation gaps: a new informatics research agenda for telemonitoring of chronic disease. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80(10):734-44.

[51] Nüesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Rutjes AWS, Tschannen B, Altman DG, Egger M, Jüni P. Small study effects in meta-analysis of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2010;341:c3515-23. in Gurne O, Conraads V, Missault L et al. A critical review on telemonitoring in heart failure. Acta Cardiol 2012; 67(4):439-44.

[52] Radhakrishnan K, Jacelon C. Impact of telehealth on patient self-management of heart failure: a review of literature. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2012; 27(1):33-43.

[53] Pandor A, Thokala P, Gomersall T et al. Home telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes after recent discharge in patients with heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2013; 17(32):1-207, v-vi.

[54] Pare G, Jaana M, Sicotte C. Systematic review of home telemonitoring for chronic diseases: the evidence base. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14(3):269-77.

[55] Pare G, Moqadem K, Pineau G, St-Hilaire C. Clinical effects of home telemonitoring in the context of diabetes, asthma, heart failure and hypertension: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2010; 12(2):e21.

[56] Purcell R, McInnes S, Halcomb EJ. Telemonitoring can assist in managing cardiovascular disease in primary care: a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMC Fam Pract 2014; 15:43.

[57] Rich MW. Epidemiology, pathophysiology, and etiology of congestive heart failure in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45:968 –974.in Whellan D.J. Heart failure disease management: Implementation and outcomes. Cardiol. Rev. 2005; 13(5):231-9.

[58] Riegel B, Carlson B, Kopp Z, et al. Effect of a standardized nurse case-management telephone intervention on resource use in patients with chronic heart failure. Arch Intern Med. 2002 Mar 25;162(6):705–12. Epub: 2002/03/26. in Feltner C., Jones C.D., Cene C.W. et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 2014; 160(11):774-84.

[59] Riegel B, Carlson B, Glaser D, et al. Randomized controlled trial of telephone case management in Hispanics of Mexican origin with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2006 Apr;12(3):211–9. Epub: 2006/04/21. in Feltner C., Jones C.D., Cene C.W. et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 2014; 160(11):774-84.

[60] Roine R, Ohinmaa A, Hailey D. Assessing telemedicine: A systematic review of the literature Can Med Assoc J 2001;165:765-771.  in Pare G, Jaana M, Sicotte C. Systematic review of home telemonitoring for chronic diseases: the evidence base. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14(3):269-77.

[61] Scherr D, Kastner P, Kollmann A, et al. Effect of home-based telemonitoring using mobile phone technology on the outcome of heart failure patients after an episode of acute decompensation: randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2009;11(3):p. e34.  in Giamouzis G, Mastrogiannis D, Koutrakis K et al. Telemonitoring in chronic heart failure: a systematic review. Cardiol Res Pract 2012; 2012:410820.

[62] Sousa C., Leite S., Lagido R., Ferreira L., Silva-Cardoso J., Maciel M.J. Telemonitoring in heart failure: A state-of-the-art review. Rev. Port. Cardiol. 2014.

[63] Stork S, Faller H, Schowalter M, Ertl G, Angermann CE. [Evidence-based disease management in patients with heart failure (HeartNetCare-HF Wurzburg)]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2009; 134(15):773-6.

[64] Vitacca M, Bianchi L, Guerra C, Fracchia C, Spanevello A, Balbi B et al. Tele-assistance in chronic respiratory failure patients: a randomised clinical trial. Eur Respir J 33 (February (2)) (2009) 411-418. In Hardisty AR, Peirce SC, Preece A et al. Bridging two translation gaps: a new informatics research agenda for telemonitoring of chronic disease. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80(10):734-44.

[65] Wakefield BJ, Boren SA, Groves PS, Conn VS. Heart failure care management programs: a review of study interventions and meta-analysis of outcomes. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2013; 28(1):8-19.

[66] Whellan D.J. Heart failure disease management: Implementation and outcomes. Cardiol. Rev. 2005; 13(5):231-9.

[67] Whellan DJ, Ousdigian KT, Al-Khatib SM et al. Combined heart failure device diagnostics identify patients at higher risk of subsequent heart failure hospitalizations.  J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55, 1803–1810 (2010). in Costa-Lobos A, Riley JP, Cowie MR. Current and future technologies for remote monitoring in cardiology and evidence  from trial data. Future Cardiol 2012; 8(3):425-37.

[68] Wootton R. Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management--an evidence synthesis. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18(4):211-20.

[69] Wainwright C, Wootton R. A review of telemedicine and asthma Dis Manag Health Outcomes 2003;11:557-563. in Pare G, Jaana M, Sicotte C. Systematic review of home telemonitoring for chronic diseases: the evidence base. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14(3):269-77.

[70] http://www.telemed-berlin.de/telemed/2010/beitrag/beitrag_budych317_391.pdf (last check on 24th of March 2015)

[71] Willey RM. Managing heart failure: a critical appraisal of the literature. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2012; 27(5):403-17.

[72] Clark A.L. Heart failure. Arch. Cardiol. Mex. 2011; 81(4):383-90.

[73] Adibi, Sasan, ed. (February 19, 2015). Mobile Health: A Technology Road Map. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-12817-7 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHealth

[74] Cipresso, P.; Serino S.; Villani D.; Repetto C.; Selitti L.; Albani G.; Mauro A.; Gaggioli A.; Riva G. (2012). "Is your phone so smart to affect your states? An exploratory study based on psychophysiological measures". Neurocomputing 84: 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2011.12.027 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHealth

[75] Germanakos P., Mourlas C., & Samaras G. "A Mobile Agent Approach for Ubiquitous and Personalized eHealth Information Systems" Proceedings of the Workshop on 'Personalization for e-Health' of the 10th International Conference on User Modeling (UM'05). Edinburgh, July 29, 2005, pp. 67–70. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHealth

 [76] http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/green-paper-mobile-health-mhealth

[77] IDC "Worldwide and U.S. Mobile Applications, Storefronts, Developer, and In-App Advertising 2011-

2015 Forecast: Emergence of Postdownload Business Models". In Green Paper on mobile health, available at http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/green-paper-mobile-health-mhealth

[78] Deloitte study "mHealth in an mWorld", 2012. In [6]

 [79] Cloud computing refers to the storing, processing and use of data on remotely located computers

accessed over the internet. In [6]

[80] COM(2012) 529, "Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe", 27.09.2012. In [6]

 [81] Special Eurobarometer 381 E-COMMUNICATIONS HOUSEHOLD SURVEY, June 2012. In [6]

[82] http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-package. In [6]

[83] The new EU funding programme for research and innovation for the period 2014-2020. In [6]

[84] Research2Guidance (2013), "The mobile health global market report 2013-2017: the commercialisation

of mHealth apps" (Vol. 3). In [6]

Appendices

Annex 1

Excluded literature from the basic literature search

Source

EndNote Number

P People aged 16 or more with CHF (defined as I50

I Home telemonitoring (defined as domiciliary detection, recognition, identification, location and transmission of vital functions and other biological information of a person )

C No home telemonitoring

O Mortality (disease specific and all cause) progressions, admissions, re-admissions, QoL, harms, device use

D Evidence synthesis studies (SRs, HTA reports) [updating RCTs i.e. RCT fitting the PICO which have been published after the last search date of the latest SR/HTA document ]

CUR_TEC domain?

other reason for exclusion

Mair F.S. Does remote monitoring improve outcome in patients with chronic heart failure? Commentary. Nat. Clin. Pract. Cardiovasc. Med. 2007; 4(11):588-9.

Rec #: 1260

 

 

 

 

no

 

 

Redman B.K. Ethically problematic assumptions regarding patient self management and barriers to improved outcomes. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2006; 6(5):489-94.

Rec #: 1450

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Costa A.P., Hirdes J.P. Clinical characteristics and service needs of alternate-level-of-care patients waiting for long-term care in Ontario hospitals. Healtc. Policy 2010; 6(1):32-46. Rec #: 1400

Rec #: 1400

 

no

 

 

 

 

 

Agarwal R, Bills JE, Hecht TJ, Light RP. Role of home blood pressure monitoring in overcoming therapeutic inertia and improving hypertension control: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertension 2011; 57(1):29-38.

Rec #: 460

no

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mengden T, Ewald S, Kaufmann S, vor dem Esche J, Uen S, Vetter H. Telemonitoring of blood pressure self measurement in the OLMETEL study. Blood Press Monit 2004; 9(6):321-5.

Rec #: 650

no

 

 

 

 

 

 

Omboni S, Gazzola T, Carabelli G, Parati G. Clinical usefulness and cost effectiveness of home blood pressure telemonitoring: meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. J Hypertens 2013; 31(3):455-67; discussion 467-8.

Rec #: 380

no

 

 

 

 

 

 

Omboni S, Guarda A. Impact of home blood pressure telemonitoring and blood pressure control: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Am J Hypertens 2011; 24(9):989-98.

Rec #: 450

no

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parati G, de Leeuw P, Illyes M et al. Blood pressure measurement in research. Blood Press Monit 2002; 7(1):83-7.

Rec #: 670

no

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shepperd S. Hospital at home: The evidence is not compelling. Ann. Intern. Med. 2005; 143(11):840-1.

Rec #: 1470

 

 

 

 

no

 

 

Zartner P, Handke R, Photiadis J, Brecher AM, Schneider MB. Performance of an autonomous telemonitoring system in children and young adults with congenital heart diseases. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2008; 31(10):1291-9.

Rec #: 600

no

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jaana M, Pare G. Home telemonitoring of patients with diabetes: a systematic assessment of observed effects. J Eval Clin Pract 2007; 13(2):242-53.

Rec #: 620

no

 

 

 

 

 

 

Baztan J.J., Suarez-Garcia F.M., Lopez-Arrieta J., Rodriguez-Manas L., Rodriguez-Artalejo F. Effectiveness of acute geriatric units on functional decline, living at home, and case fatality among older patients admitted to hospital for acute medical disorders: Meta-analysis. BMJ (Online) 2009; 338(7690):334-6.

Rec #: 1440

 

no

 

 

 

 

 

Crawford-Faucher A. Home- and center-based cardiac rehabilitation equally effective. Am. Fam. Phys. 2010; 82(8):994-5.

Rec #: 1390

 

no

 

 

 

 

 

Hwang R, Redfern J, Alison J. A narrative review on home-based exercise training for patients with chronic heart failure (Provisional abstract). Physical Therapy Reviews .

Rec #: 890

 

no

 

 

 

 

 

Hwang R., Marwick T. Efficacy of home-based exercise programmes for people with chronic heart failure: A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Prev. Rehabil. 2009; 16(5):527-35.

Rec #: 1420

 

no

 

 

 

 

 

Daskalopoulou SS, Khan NA, Quinn RR et al. The 2012 Canadian hypertension education program recommendations for the management of hypertension: blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of  risk, and therapy. Can J Cardiol 2012; 28(3):270-87.

Rec #: 740

no

 

 

 

 

 

 

McKinstry B, Hanley J, Wild S et al. Telemonitoring based service redesign for the management of uncontrolled hypertension: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2013; 346:f3030.

Rec #: 360

no

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inglis Sally C, Clark Robyn A, McAlister Finlay A et al. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . CD007228

Rec #: 780

 

 

 

 

 

 

double

Feltner C, Jones CD, Cene CW et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160(11):774-84.

Rec #: 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

double

Chien C L, Lee C M, Wu Y W, Chen T A, Wu Y T. Home-based exercise increases exercise capacity but not quality of life in people with chronic heart failure: a systematic review (Structured abstract). Australian Journal of Physiotherapy .

Rec #: 900

 

no

 

 

 

 

 

Taylor Rod S, Dalal Hayes, Jolly Kate, Moxham Tiffany, Zawada Anna. Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews .

Rec #: 930

 

no

 

 

 

 

 

Chaudhry S.I., Phillips C.O., Stewart S.S. et al. Telemonitoring for Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: A Systematic Review. J. Card. Fail. 2007; 13(1):56-62.

Rec #: 1300

 

 

 

 

 

 

double

Samartzis L., Dimopoulos S., Tziongourou M., Nanas S. Effect of psychosocial interventions on quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Card. Fail. 2013; 19(2):125-34.

Rec #: 1040

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Clark R.A., Inglis S.C., Mcalister F.A. et al. Remote (non-invasive) monitoring in heart failure: Effect on length of stay, quality of life, knowledge, adherance and satisfaction in 8,323 heart failure patients: A systematic review. Eur. Heart J. 2010; 31:944-5.

Rec #: 1190

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Clark R.A., Inglis S.C., Mcalister F.A. et al. Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of remote (non-invasive) monitoring in 8,323 heart failure patients on length of stay, quality of life, knowledge, compliance and satisfaction. Eur. J. Heart Fail. Suppl. 2010; 9:S51-S52.

Rec #: 1210

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Clark A.M., Spaling M., Harkness K. et al. Determinants of effective heart failure self-care: A systematic review of patients' and caregivers' perceptions. Heart 2014; 100(9):716-21.

Rec #: 1330

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Kraai I.H., Luttik M.L.A., De Jong R.M. et al. Measuring patient satisfaction of heart failure patients with telemonitoring: A systematic review. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2011; 10:S31.

Rec #: 1160

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Aballea S., Verpillat P., Neine M.-E., Goryakin Y., Toumi M. Development of a model predicting the medico-economic impact of telemonitoring for patients with heart failure in france. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2012; 21:16.

Rec #: 1100

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Brennan A., Thokala P., Baalbaki H., Stevens J.W., Wang J., Pandor A. Telemonitoring after discharge with heart failure-costeffectiveness modelling of alternative service designs. Value Health 2012; 15(7):A360.

Rec #: 1090

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Burri H, Sticherling C, Wright D, Makino K, Smala A, Tilden D. Cost-consequence analysis of daily continuous remote monitoring of implantable cardiac defibrillator and resynchronization devices in the UK. Europace 2013; 15(11):1601-8.

Rec #: 60

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Klersy C, De Silvestri A, Gabutti G et al. Economic impact of remote patient monitoring: an integrated economic model derived from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2011; 13(4):450-9.

Rec #: 150

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Thokala P., Baalbaki H., Brennan A. Telemonitoring after discharge from hospital with heart failure - Cost-effectiveness modelling of alternative service designs. Value Health 2013; 16(7):A530.

Rec #: 1000

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Thokala P., Brennan A., Baalbaki H. Cost-effectiveness modelling of telemonitoring after discharge from hospital with heart failure. Value Health 2013; 16(3):A290.

Rec #: 1030

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Conway A, Inglis SC, Chang AM, Horton-Breshears M, Cleland JG, Clark RA. Not all systematic reviews are systematic: a meta-review of the quality of systematic reviews for non-invasive remote monitoring in heart failure. J Telemed Telecare 2013; 19(6):326-37.

Rec #: 20

other source

 

 

 

 

 

double with Rec#1020

Feltner C, Jones CD, Cene CW et al. 2014. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Jun 3;160(11):774-84. doi: 10.7326/M14-0083.

Rec #: 260

 

 

 

 

 

 

double with REC#950

Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA et al. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (8):CD007228.

Rec #: 490

 

 

 

 

 

 

double with Rec#1240

Pandor A. Home telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with heart failure. Health Technol. Assess. 2013; 17(32).

Rec #: 1010

 

 

 

 

 

 

double with Rec#1010

Rychlik R., Rulhoff H. Socioeconomic relevance of selected treatment strategies in patients with chronic heart failure. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2005; 5(3):277-86.

Rec #: 1510

 

 

 

 

 

no

 

Kitsiou S, Pare G, Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15(7):e150.

Rec #: 340

no

no

no

no

no

no

critical appraisal of systematic reviewing

Abu-Awwad R., Alkhatib Y., Bukannan A. et al. Telemonitoring in patients with heart failure: A single-center experience. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2012; 27:S313.

Rec #: 1110

 

 

 

 

 

 

only abstract available

Clark A.L. Heart failure. Arch. Cardiol. Mex. 2011; 81(4):383-90.

Rec #: 1130

 

no

 

 

no

 

 

Cleland J.G.F., Coletta A.P., Buga L. et al. Clinical trials update from the American Heart Association Meeting 2010: EMPHASIS-HF, RAFT, TIM-HF, Tele-HF, ASCEND-HF, ROCKET-AF, and PROTECT. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2011; 13(4):460-5.

Rec #: 1150

 

 

 

 

 

 

only abstract, refers to '130

Cleland JG, Coletta AP, Clark AL. Clinical trials update from the joint European Society and World Congress of Cardiology meeting: PEP-CHF, ACCLAIM and the HHH study. Eur J Heart Fail 2006; 8(6):658-61.

Rec #: 640

 

 

 

 

no

 

only abstract

Grustam AS, Severens JL, van Nijnatten J, Koymans R, Vrijhoef HJ. Cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions for chronic heart failure patients: a literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014; 30(1):59-68.

Rec #: 310

 

 

 

 

 

 

cost domain

Jaarsma T., Van Veldhuisen D.J., Gustafsson F., Arnold J.M.O. Heart failure management: How much COACH-ing is needed? (multple letters). Eur. Heart J. 2005; 26(3):314-5.

Rec #: 1520

no

no

no

no

no

no

letter to the editor

Oxberry SG, Johnson MJ. Review of the evidence for the management of dyspnoea in people with chronic heart failure. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 2008; 2(2):84-8.

Rec #: 610

 

 

 

 

 

no

no informatio for cur, tec or leg

Seto E. Cost comparison between telemonitoring and usual care of heart failure: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health 2008; 14(7):679-86.

Rec #: 210

 

 

 

 

 

no

no informatio for cur, tec or leg

Stamp KD, Machado MA, Allen NA. Transitional care programs improve outcomes for heart failure patients (Provisional abstract). J Cardiovasc Nurs .

Rec #: 880

 

 

 

 

 

no

no informatio for cur, tec or leg

Stewart S. Comprehensive care in heart failure: Where to from here? Evid.-Based Healthc. Public Health 2005; 9(6):396-7.

Rec #: 1490

 

 

 

 

 

no

no informatio for cur, tec or leg

Van Spall H.G.C., Mytton O., Coppiens M., Shiga T., Haynes B., Connolly S. Comparative effectiveness of transitional care services in patients discharged from the hospital with heart failure (HF): A meta-analysis. Cardiology 2014; 128:470.

Rec #: 940

 

 

 

 

 

 

only abstract available

Whellan DJ, Adams S, Bowerman L. Review of advanced heart failure device diagnostics examined in clinical trials and the potential benefit from monitoring capabilities. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2011; 54(2):107-14.

Rec #: 760

 

no

 

 

 

 

 

Winkler S., Koehler F. A Meta-Analysis of Remote Monitoring of Heart Failure Patients. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010; 55(14):1505-6.

Rec #: 1220

 

 

 

 

editorial

no

no informatio for cur, tec or leg

Zhang Y., Mabote T., Atkin P. et al. Outcome of patients discharged after an episode of worsening heart failure into a heart failure specialist service supported by home telemonitoring. Eur. J. Heart Fail. Suppl. 2012; 11:S35-S36.

Rec #: 1120

 

 

 

 

 

 

only abstract available

Duffy JR, Hoskins LM, Chen MC. Nonpharmacological strategies for improving heart failure outcomes in the community: a systematic review. J Nurs Care Qual 2004; 19(4):349-60.

Rec #: 240

other source

no

 

 

 

 

 

Casas J.P., Kwong J., Ebrahim S. Telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: not ready for prime time. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 2011:ED000008.

Rec #: 1370

 

 

 

 

 

 

Editorial

Metra M., Nodari S., Bardonali T., Milani P., Dei Cas L. Clinical trials update from the World Congress of Cardiology 2006. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2007; 8(6):881-9.

Rec #: 1290

 

no

 

 

 

 

 

Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G et al. 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the  Task Force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Eur Heart J 2013; 34(29):2281-329.

Rec #: 50

 

no

 

 

 

 

implantable devices overview

 

Safety

Authors: Mirjana Huic, Pernilla Östlund, Romana Tandara Hacek, Jelena Barbaric, Marius Ciutan, Silvia Florescu, Silvia Gabriela Scintee

Summary

Aim: To determine whether treatment with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV), without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRTs) or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure has impact on patients’ and technical safety (technical reliability).

Methods: A systematic literature search, according to the predefined search strategy (not limited by publication date but limited to English language), was performed according to the Cochrane methodology, in standard medical and HTA databases. Relevant references (after duplicates were removed) were screened and assessed for eligibility independently by two reviewers. References have been included or excluded according to the overall research question, Population-Intervention-Control-Outcome (PICO)-scheme (as described in Project Scope), and the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. The quality of the included systematic reviews (SRs) was assessed using AMSTAR tool {Shea 2007}. The results from the included SRs were included according to the methodology suggested by Whitlock 2008 { } and Robinson 2014 { } on how to integrate existing SRs into new SRs. Risk of bias of included RCTs was evaluated independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias checklist and EUnetHTA methods guidelines on internal validity of RCTs. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer on pre-defined extraction tables and double-checked regarding completeness and accuracy by a second reviewer. Any differences in extraction results were discussed to achieve consensus; any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Quantitative synthesis from existing SRs were used and presented in Result section when available for specific assessment element questions. No new meta-analysis was performed. Primary outcomes were adverse events (AE): frequency of any AE, serious-SAE, most frequent AE; and discontinuation due AE. A secondary outcome was technical safety (technical reliability).

Results: 591 records were identified through database searching and 28 additional records were identified through other sources; 428 remained after duplicates were removed. One hundred full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and after the exclusion of 76 full-text articles, five high quality SRs and 19 full text published RCTs were included in our SR. Of the included RCTs, only three were judged to be of low risk of bias. In the most recent SR no evidence on potential harms was found on STS interventions. None of 19 included RCTs specifically mentioned adverse events (AEs) as primary or secondary outcomes. In only one RCT which specifically mentioned AEs no adverse events were reported and only one RCT provided explanation on the reason why it did not monitor AEs.

Conclusion: The sources were not sufficient to answer the questions on STS safety in patients with chronic heart failure. No evidence was found to answer technical safety.

Introduction

The Safety Domains describes the direct and indirect harms of a technology for patients, staff and environment, and how to reduce the risk of harms {HTA Core Model Handbook Online, Version 1.5}.

Aim of this assessment was to determine whether treatment with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV), without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRTs) or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure, has impact on patients’ and technical safety (technical reliability).

More specifically our primary outcomes were adverse events (AE): any AE, serious-SAE, most frequent AE; and discontinuation due AE. A secondary outcome was technical safety (technical reliability).

For this relative effectiveness assessment we planned to find and update recent, high quality systematic review (SR), with PICO (Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome) scheme relevant for this assessment. Whitlock et al. 2008 { } and Robinson et al. 2014 { } in their published articles, regarding how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new systematic reviews, found that consensus among systematic review organizations and the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews already exist, but areas of uncertainty remain: how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. According their published data, use of existing systematic reviews may include: (1) using the existing systematic review(s)’ listing of included studies as a quality check for the literature search and screening strategy conducted for the new review (Scan References); (2) using the existing systematic review(s) to completely or partially provide the body of included studies for one or more Key Questions in the new review (Use Existing Search); (3) using the data abstraction, risk of bias assessments, and/or analyses from existing systematic reviews for one or more Key Questions in the new review (Use Data Abstraction/Syntheses), or (4) using the existing systematic review(s), including conclusions, to fully or partially answer one or more Key Questions in the new review (Use Complete Review).

Methodology

Frame

The collection scope is used in this domain.

TechnologyStructured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure
Description

Telemonitoring via structured telephone support with focus on patient reported signs (symptoms of congestion, peripheral edema, pulmonary congestion, dyspnea on exertion, abdominal fullness), medication adherence, physiological data (like heart rate, blood pressure, body weight – measured by the patient with home-device), activity level; done in regular schedules using risk stratification (with fixed algorithm by call center staff or experience-based by specialized staff); done by dedicated call centers, center-based staff, nurses, AND reduced visits to a GP or heart center

Intended use of the technologyPrevention

Remote transmission of information to alleviate symptoms, relieve suffering and allow timely treatment for chronic heart failure

Target condition
Chronic cardiac failure
Target condition description

Heart failure is a condition in which the heart has lost the ability to pump enough blood to the body's tissues. With too little blood being delivered, the organs and other tissues do not receive enough oxygen and nutrients to function properly.

Target population

Target population sex: Any. Target population age: adults and elderly. Target population group: Patients who have the target condition.

Target population description

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF; defined as I50 http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/I00-I99/I30-I52/I50-/I50 ) AND hospitalization due to heart failure at least once  AND without implanted devices

ComparisonUsual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist or patient has to move (≠ at home)
Description

Usual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist; patient has to move (≠ at home)

Outcomes

Mortality (disease specific and all cause) progressions, admissions, re-admissions, QoL or HRQoL, harms

Assessment elements

TopicIssue RelevantResearch questions or rationale for irrelevance
C0001Patient safetyWhat kind of harms can use of the technology cause to the patient; what are the incidence, severity and duration of harms?yesWhat is the frequency of all AEs with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
What is the frequency of discontinuation of Structured telephone support (STS) due to adverse events in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
What is the frequency of and what are the serious-SAEs with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
What is the frequency of SAE leading to deaths with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
What are the most frequent AEs with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
C0005Patient safetyAre there susceptible patient groups that are more likely to be harmed through use of the technology?yesAre there susceptible patient groups that are more likely to be harmed through use of the home telemonitoring Structured telephone support (STS)
C0007Patient safetyAre there special issues in the use of the technology that may increase the risk of harmful events?yesAre there special issues in the use of the Structured telephone support (STS) that may increase the risk of harmful events?
C0002Patient safetyAre the harms related to dosage or frequency  of applying the technology?noNot important for STS.
C0004Patient safetyHow does the frequency or severity of harms change over time or in different settings?noNot important for STS.
C0006Patient safetyWhat are the consequences of false positive, false negative and incidental findings generated by using the technology from the viewpoint of patient safety?noNot important for Structured telephone support (STS).
C0008Patient safetyHow safe is the technology in relation to the comparator(s)?noDuplication of C0001, please see C0001.
C0060Safety risk managementHow does the safety profile of the technology vary between different generations, approved versions  or products?yesHow does the safety profile of the Structured telephone support (STS) vary between two different approach (human to human or human to machine interface)?
C0062Safety risk managementHow can one reduce safety risks for patients (including technology-, user-, and patient-dependent aspects)?yesHow can one reduce safety risks for adults with chronic heart failure (including technology-, user-, and patient-dependent aspects)?
C0061Safety risk managementCan different organizational settings increase or decrease harms?noNot relevant for STS.
C0063Safety risk managementHow can one reduce safety risks for professionals (including technology-, user-, and patient-dependent aspects)?noNot important for STS.
C0064Safety risk managementHow can one reduce safety risks for environment (including technology-, user-, and patient-dependent aspects)noNot important for STS.
C0020Occupational safetyWhat kind of occupational harms can occur when using the technology?noNot important for STS.
C0040Environmental safetyWhat kind of risks for public and environment may occur when using the technology?noNot important for STS.

Methodology description

A systematic literature search, according the predefined search strategy (Appendix 1) (not limited by publication date but limited to English language), was performed according to the Cochrane methodology {Higgins 2011}, in standard medical and HTA databases.

Information sources

Specifically, the following databases were searched: MEDLINE accessed through OVID or Pubmed; CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost), SCI-EXPANDED (Web of ScienceTM Core Collection) and Cochrane Library searching the following databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Reviews), The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and The Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA).

This was complemented by hand search of the following websites: http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/health-technology-assessment; http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/publications.htm; http://guidance.nice.org.uk/Date; http://hta.lbg.ac.at; http://kce.fgov.be; http://www.hiqa.ie/; http://www.agenas.it. The reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and health technology assessment reports were checked for relevant studies.

In addition, the following clinical trials registries were assessed, for registered ongoing clinical trials or results posted: ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, EU Clinical Trials Register, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

Relevant references (after duplicates were removed) were screened and assessed for eligibility independently by two reviewers. References have been included or excluded according to the overall research question, Population-Intervention-Control-Outcome (PICO)-scheme (as described in Project Scope),  and the inclusion/exclusion criteria listed below:

Q What are the effects of Structured telephone support (STS) on adults with chronic heart failure?

P Individuals aged 16 or more with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV), without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRTs) or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure

I Structured telephone support (STS)

C Usual care (UC) without Structured telephone support (STS)

O Domain Specific Outcomes: Adverse events (AE) (frequency of any AE, serious-SAE, most frequent AE; discontinuation due AE); technical safety (technical reliability)

Study Design 

D Evidence synthesis studies (SRs, HTA reports) [updating RCTs i.e. RCT fitting the PICO which have been published after the last search date of the latest SR/HTA document]

Inclusion criteria:

  1. SRs and HTAs and RCTs comparing chronic heart failure patients management /New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV, without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRTs) or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure/ delivered via structured telephone support with usual care;
  2. Patients should be randomized to structured telephone support or usual care without structured telephone support (STS);
  3. One or more of the SAF outcomes were reported;
  4. Sufficient methodological details are reported to allow critical appraisal of study quality;
  5. Publication in English;
  6. Report on humans only.

Exclusion criteria:

Primary or secondary studies which:

1) Do not involve adult patients with CHF /New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV, without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), CRTs or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure/;  

2)  Do not compare CHF management delivered via structured telephone support with usual care in patients with CHF living within the community;

3) Home visits were performed as part of the intervention or by the clinical staff involved in the intervention

4) Do not provide data for our outcomes of interest in an extractable format;

5) Papers with RCTs without sufficient methodological details to allow critical appraisal of study quality;

6) The papers (publications) published in a language other than English; 

7) Duplicate of original publication.

Differences in selection results were discussed in order to achieve consensus; a third reviewer were involved in case of disagreement. The study selection process was presented according to the PRISMA flowchart {Liberati 2009} (Appendix 2).

Finding and updating a recent, high quality SR (with PICO scheme relevant for this relative effectiveness assessment) was planned. The publications by Whitlock et al. 2008 { } and Robinson et al. 2014 { }, regarding how to integrate existing SRs into new SRs, were used. To answer our research questions all four approaches in using existing systematic reviews, described in Robinson et al. 2014 { }, were used: (1) using the existing SR(s)’ listing of included studies as a quality check for the literature search and screening strategy conducted for the new review (Scan References); (2) using the existing SR(s) to completely or partially provide the body of included studies for one or more Key Questions in the new review (Use Existing Search); (3) using the data abstraction, risk of bias assessments, and/or analyses from existing SRs for one or more Key Questions in the new review (Use Data Abstraction/Syntheses), and (4) using the existing SR(s), including conclusions, to fully or partially answer one or more Key Questions in this SR (Use Complete Review).

Quality assessment tools or criteria

The quality of the included systematic review was assessed using AMSTAR {Shea 2007}.

Risk of bias was evaluated independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias checklist and EUnetHTA methods guidelines on internal validity of RCTs {Higgins 2011; EUnetHTA 2013}

Direct evidence related to primary outcomes of our assessment was planned to assess by using the GRADE-methodology {Guyatt 2008}. This approach specifies four levels of quality:

High: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect;

Moderate: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimates;

Low: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate;

Very low: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

Analysis and synthesis

Data extraction was performed by one reviewer on pre-defined extraction tables and double-checked regarding completeness and accuracy by a second reviewer. Any differences in extraction results were discussed to achieve consensus; a third reviewer was involved in case of disagreement.

The following information was extracted from included secondary studies (SRs or HTAs):Study general information: Author; Year of publication; Reference number; Study objectives; Study characteristics: Study types included in the review; Number of studies included in the review; Review timeframe; Comparison(s); Patients groups (number of patients and health technology used) in the included studies; Outcomes and follow-up: Main outcomes reported; Main study findings; Conclusions: Authors' conclusions. Please look in EFF Domain (Appendix 3)

The following information was extracted from included primary studies:

Data on Study characteristics (study design, registration number, country and centre, study period, ethics committee approval, sponsor, study methodology); Patient characteristics (age, gender, NYHA I-IV); Outcomes; Intervention; Comparator; Flow of patients; Statistical analysis; Results on primary and secondary outcomes; and Conflict of interest data were extracted. Please look in EFF Domain (Appendix 4)

Quantitative synthesis from existing SRs were used and presented in Resut section wherever appropiate. No new meta-analysis was performed.  

Result cards

Patient safety

Result card for SAF1a: "What is the frequency of all AEs with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?", SAF1b: "What is the frequency of discontinuation of Structured telephone support (STS) due to adverse events in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?", SAF1c: "What is the frequency of and what are the serious-SAEs with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?", SAF1d: "What is the frequency of SAE leading to deaths with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?" and SAF1e: "What are the most frequent AEs with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
SAF1a: What is the frequency of all AEs with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

SAF1b: What is the frequency of discontinuation of Structured telephone support (STS) due to adverse events in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

SAF1c: What is the frequency of and what are the serious-SAEs with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

SAF1d: What is the frequency of SAE leading to deaths with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

SAF1e: What are the most frequent AEs with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

Result card for SAF2: "Are there susceptible patient groups that are more likely to be harmed through use of the home telemonitoring Structured telephone support (STS)"

View full card
SAF2: Are there susceptible patient groups that are more likely to be harmed through use of the home telemonitoring Structured telephone support (STS)
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for SAF3: "Are there special issues in the use of the Structured telephone support (STS) that may increase the risk of harmful events?"

View full card
SAF3: Are there special issues in the use of the Structured telephone support (STS) that may increase the risk of harmful events?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Safety risk management

Result card for SAF4: "How does the safety profile of the Structured telephone support (STS) vary between two different approach (human to human or human to machine interface)?"

View full card
SAF4: How does the safety profile of the Structured telephone support (STS) vary between two different approach (human to human or human to machine interface)?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for SAF5: "How can one reduce safety risks for adults with chronic heart failure (including technology-, user-, and patient-dependent aspects)?"

View full card
SAF5: How can one reduce safety risks for adults with chronic heart failure (including technology-, user-, and patient-dependent aspects)?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Discussion

Aim of this relative effectiveness assessment was to determine whether treatment with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV), without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRTs) or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure has impact on patients’ and technical safety (technical reliability).

More specifically, our primary outcomes were adverse events (AE): any AE, serious-SAE, most frequent AE and discontinuation due AE. A secondary outcome was technical safety (technical reliability).

Five existing SRs have been integrated {Feltner et al, 2014; Kotb et al, 2015; Pandor et al, 2013; Inglis et al, 2011; Clark et al, 2007} according to the methodology described in Whitlock et al. 2008 { } and Robinson et al. 2014 { }, into this SR. Additionally, 19 RCTs have been included to answer domain assessment element questions that were not answered by the five SRs. We were faced with already recognized areas of uncertainty: how to appropriately synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews.

In the most recent SR and HTA {Feltner et al, 2014}  no evidence on potential harms was found on STS interventions.

Also none of 19 included RCTs specifically predefined adverse events (AEs) as primary or secondary outcomes. The same is true for one identified trial in publicly available clinical trial register. Only one RCT specifically mentioned AEs Chaudhry et al, 2010 { } and only one RCT provide explanation the reason why they did not monitor AEs Sisk et al, 2006 { }. Chaudhry et al, 2010 { } in 6 months treatment period, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, low risk of bias controlled trial  with aim  to assess whether telemonitoring would reduce the combined end point of readmission or death from any cause among patients recently hospitalized for heart failure no adverse events were reported. Authors discussed that the primary anticipated adverse event associated with telemonitoring was a delay in seeking care for urgent or emergency situations because of a belief that the telemonitoring data would immediately alert clinicians. Sisk et al, 2006 { }, explained that since both nurse management and usual care involved only services delivered in routine practice, the study did not monitor adverse effects.

Kidholm et al, 2012 { } provide a Model for Assessment of Telemedicine Applications, MAST, a structure for future assessment of telemedicine applications. MAST was tested during 2010–13 in twenty studies of telemedicine applications in nine European countries in the EC project Renewing Health on different chronic diseases: Diabetes Mellitus type 2, COPD and Congestive Heart Failure  {Kidholm et al, 2014}.

In RCT assessed remote monitoring of CHF (only 29 patients were analysed in the control group and 30 in the telemonitoring group) safety data was not mentioned {Dafouluas et al, 2014}.

The whole data of Renewing Health project, on telemonitoring application in patients with all three chronic diseases, has demonstrated that the telemedicine services tested are safe as usual care {Kidholm et al, 2014}.

 

The findings of our literature search are consistent with other studies who address outcomes reporting bias on safety outcomes.

McLean et al, 2013 { } in their systematic review of systematic review with aim to generate a high level synthesis of the evidence on telehealth care applications showed that there was very little in the systematic reviews specifically concerning patient safety. It was not clear whether adverse events did not occur or whether there was a lack of reporting.

Several studies non-specifically connected with telemedicine interventions have documented underreporting of low-grade AEs, recurrent AEs and inconsistent and incomplete characterization and reporting of high-grade AEs {Scharf et al, 2006; Ethgen et al, 2009; Pitrouet al, 2009}.

 

In study published by Saini et al, 2014 { } with aim to determine the extent and nature of selective non-reporting of harm outcomes in clinical studies that were eligible for inclusion in a cohort of systematic reviews outcome reporting bias for harms was evident in nearly two thirds of all primary studies included in systematic reviews.

 

In contrast, in the sample of the RCTs analysed in study published by Huic et al, 2011 { } in which technologies other than pharmaceuticals were presented in 30% of total sample,  serious and non-serious AEs were mentioned in more than 80% of the published articles.

 

In our assessment the sources were not sufficient to answer the questions due the fact that little evidence was identified on the potential harms of STS. No RCTs were found at all to answer some assessment element questions, like technical safety. Possible limitation of our assessment is that we looked only for SRs and RCTs, and not for prospective observational comparative studies or registries data.

The poor reporting of harms data (safety data is inadequately reported or not reported at all) has major implications for proper judging the benefit-risk ratio.

Limitations of data from published studies are obvious, so further research is needed on safety of STS interventions in chronic heart failure patients. Due another limitation - narrow scope of our assessment, our results are not applicable to patients with chronic heart failure with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds) or pacemakers. Hindricks et al. 2014 and Parthiban et al. 2015 recently published data on remote monitoring in this selected group of patients { }.

Several methodological issues should be solved when conducting the RCTs like masking outcome assessment as well as clear description of usual care. Pragmatic RCTs as well as observational real world data should also address this issue. Data reporting should be according evidence-based reporting guidelines, specifically CONSORT Statement extension on better reporting of harms in RCTs and trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments {Ioannidis et al, 2004; Boutron et al, 2008}.

References

Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinskon KA. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Int Med. 2008;148(10):776-82.

Robinson KA, Whitlock EP, O’Neil ME, Anderson JK, Hartling L, Dryden DM, Butler M, et al. Integration of Existing Systematic Reviews. Research White Paper (Prepared by the Scientific Resource Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00004-C). AHRQ Publication No. 14-EHC016-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2014. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810543/pdf/1471-2288-7-10.pdf

European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Level of evidence. Internal validity of randomized controlled trials. EunetHTA; 2013.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of reccomendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924-6

Feltner C, Jones CD, Cené CW, Zheng ZJ, Sueta CA, Coker-Schwimmer EJ, et al. Transitional Care Interventions to Prevent Readmissions for Persons With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(11):774-8.

Feltner C, Jones CD, Cené CW, Zheng Z-J, Sueta CA, Coker-Schwimmer EJL, Arvanitis M, Lohr KN, Middleton JC, Jonas DE. Transitional Care Interventions To Prevent Readmissions for People With Heart Failure. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 133. (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00008-I). AHRQ Publication No. 14-EHC021-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; May 2014. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

Kotb A, Cameron C, Hsieh S, Wells G. Comparative Effectiveness of Different Forms of Telemedicine for Individuals with Heart Failure (HF): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE. 2015; 10(2):e0118681.

Pandor A, Thokala P, Gomersall T, Baalbaki H, Stevens JW, Wang J, et al. Home telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes after recent discharge in patients with heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(32).

Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Ball J, Lewinter C, Cullington D, Stewart S, Cleland JGF. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010, Issue 8. Art. No.:CD007228.

Clark RA, Inglis SC, McAlister FA, Cleland JGF, Stewart S. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2007:doi:10.1136/bmj.39156.536968.55

Angermann CE, Stoerk S, Gelbrich G, Faller H, Jahns R, Frantz S, et al. Competence Network Heart Failure. Mode of action and effects of standardized collaborative disease management on mortality and morbidity in patients with systolic heart failure: the Interdisciplinary Network for Heart Failure (INH) study. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5:25-35.

Barth V. A nurse-managed discharge program for congestive heart failure patients: outcomes and costs. Home Health Care Management and Practice. 2001;13(6):436–43.

Cleland JG, Louis AA, Rigby AS, Janssens U, Balk AH, TEN-HMS Investigators. Noninvasive home telemonitoring for patients with heart failure at high risk of recurrent admission and death: The Trans-European Network-Home-Care Management System (TEN-HMS) study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2005;45(10):1654–64.

Chaudhry SI, Mattera JA, Curtis JP, Spertus JA, Herrin J, Lin Z, et al. Telemonitoring in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2301–9.

DeBusk RF, Miller NH, Parker KM, Bandura A, Kraemer HC, Cher DJ, et al.Care management for lowrisk patients with heart failure: A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2004;141(8):606–13.

DeWalt DA, Malone RM, Bryant ME, Kosnar MC, Corr KE, Rothman RL, et al. A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: A randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170]. BMC Health Services Research. 2006;6:30.

Galbreath AD, Krasuski RA, Smith B, Stajduhar KC, Kwan MD, Ellis R, et al. Long-term healthcare and cost outcomes of disease management in a large, randomized, community-based population with heart  failure. Circulation. 2004;110(23):3518–26.

Gattis WA, Hasselblad V, Whellan DJ, O’Connor CM. Reduction in heart failure events by the addition of a clinical  pharmacist to the heart failure management team. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1999;159:1939–45.

GESICA Investigators. Randomised trial of telephone intervention in chronic heart failure: DIAL trial. British Medical Journal. 2005;331(7514):425.

Laramee AS, Levinsky SK, Sargent J, Ross R, Callas P. Case management in a heterogeneous congestive heart failure population: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2003;163:809–817.

Mortara A, Pinna GD, Johnson P, Maestri R, Capomolla S, La Rovere MT, et al. Home telemonitoring in heart failure patients: The HHH study (Home or Hospital in Heart Failure). European Journal of Heart Failure. 2009;11:312–318.

Rainville EC. Impact of pharmacist intervention on hospital readmissions for heart failure. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. 1999;56:1339–42.

Ramachandran K, Husain N, Maikhuri R, Seth S, Vij A, Kumar M, et al. Impact of a comprehensive telephonebased disease management programme on quality-of-life in patients with heart failure. Natl Med J India. 2007;20:67–73.

Riegel B, Carlson B, Kopp Z, LePetri B, Glaser D, Unger A. Effect of a standardized nurse case-management telephone intervention on resource use in patients with chronic heart failure. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2002;162:705–12.

Riegel B, Carlson B, Glaser D, Romero T. Randomized Controlled Trial of Telephone Case Management in Hispanics of Mexican Origin With Heart Failure. Journal of Cardiac Failure. 2006;12(3):211–19.

Sisk JE, Hebert PL, Horowitz CR, McLaughlin MA, Wang JJ, Chassin MR. Effects of nurse management on the quality of heart failure care in minority communities: A randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2006;145:273–83.

Tsuyuki RT, Fradette M, Johnson JA, Bungard TJ, Eurich DT, Ashton T, et al. A multicenter disease management program for hospitalized patients with heart failure. J Cardiac Fail. 2004;10:473–80.

Wakefield BJ, Ward MM, Holman JE, Ray A, Scherubel M, Burns TL, et al. Evaluation of home telehealth following hospitalization for heart failure: a randomized trial. Telemed J E Health.2008;14:753–61.

Krum H, Forbes A, Yallop J, Driscoll A, Croucher J, Chan B, et al. Telephone Support to Rural and Remote Patients with Heart Failure: The Chronic Heart Failure Assessment by Telephone (CHAT) study. Cardiovascular Therapeutics. 2013;31:230–37.

Kidholm et al. A Model for Assessment of Telemedicine Applications: MAST. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2012;28:44–51.

Kidholm K, Stafylas P, Kotzeva A, Pedersen CD, Dafoulas G, Scharf I et al. REgioNs of Europe WorkINg together for HEALTH. Final Report – Public Version 1.5, June 2014.

Dafoluas G. REgioNs of Europe WorkINg together for HEALTH. Deliverable D14.7. Final Pilot Evaluation – Greece, Version 1.1, March 2014.

McLean S, Sheikh A, Cresswell K, Nurmatov U, Mukherjee M, Hemmi A, et al. (2013) The Impact of Telehealthcare on the Quality and Safety of Care: A Systematic Overview. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e71238.

Scharf O, Colevas AD. Adverse event reporting in publications compared with sponsor database for cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3933–38.

Ethgen M, Boutron I, Steg PG, Roy C, Ravaud P. Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention. Trials. 2009;10:29.

Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. Reporting of safety results in published reports of random controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1756–61.

Saini P, Loke YK, Gamble C, Altman DG, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ.  Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2014;349:g6501

Huić M, Marušić M, Marušić A. Completness and changes in registered data and reporting bias of randomized controlled trials in ICMJE journals after trial registration policy. PLOS ONE. 2011; 6(9):e25258.

Hindricks G, Taborsky M, Glikson M, Heinrich U, Schumacher B, Katz A et al. Implant-based multiparameter telemonitoring  of patients with heart failure (IN-TIME): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2014;384:583–90.

Parthiban N, Esterman A, Mahajan R, Twomey DJ, Pathak RK, Lau DH et al.  Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(24):2591-600.

Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJW, Gotzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141(10):781-788.

Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz K, Ravaud P, for the CONSORT group. Methods and Processes of the CONSORT Group: Example of an Extension for Trials Assessing Nonpharmacologic Treatments. Ann Intern Med. 2008:W60-W67.

Appendices

Please see the appendices in EFF Domain

Appendix 1. Search strategy, June 2015

Appendix 2. Flow chart of study selection

Appendix 3. Characteristics of included secondary studies: Systematic reviews/HTA, main study findings and authors conclusions. Assessing the quality of included SRs – AMSTAR Criteria

Appendix 4. RCTs included in SR of effectiveness and safety: Evidence tables and Risk of bias tables

Appendix 5. List of included studies (RCTs) in the secondary studies (SRs or HTAs)

Appendix 6. List of included studies (RCTs) in this Systematic review of Clinical Effectiveness/Safety with Follow-up duration and Risk of bias

Appendix 7. List of Ongoing RCTs in clinical trials registries

Clinical Effectiveness

Authors: Mirjana Huic, Pernilla Östlund, Romana Tandara Hacek, Jelena Barbaric, Marius Ciutan, Cristina Mototolea, Silvia Gabriela Scintee

Summary

Aim: To determine whether treatment with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV), without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRTs) or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure improves clinical outcomes and quality of life, has impact on patients’ satisfaction and function, and change in management or utilization of health service compared with current practice.

Methods: A systematic literature search, according to the predefined search strategy (not limited by publication date but limited to English language), was performed according to the Cochrane methodology, in standard medical and HTA databases. Relevant references (after duplicates were removed) were screened and assessed for eligibility independently by two reviewers. References have been included or excluded according to the overall research question, Population-Intervention-Control-Outcome (PICO)-scheme (as described in Project Scope), and the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. The quality of the included systematic reviews (SRs) was assessed using AMSTAR tool {Shea 2007}. The results from the included SRs were included according to the methodology suggested by Whitlock 2008 { } and Robinson 2014 { } on how to integrate existing SRs into new SRs. Risk of bias of included RCTs was evaluated independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias checklist and EUnetHTA methods guidelines on internal validity of RCTs. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer on pre-defined extraction tables and double-checked regarding completeness and accuracy by a second reviewer. Any differences in extraction results were discussed to achieve consensus; any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Quantitative synthesis from existing SRs were used and presented in Result section when available for specific assessment element questions. No new meta-analysis was performed. Primary outcomes were mortality (overall and disease-specific), morbidity (disease-specific symptoms, disease progression) and Health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Secondary outcomes were impact on re-hospitalization rate (disease-specific, all-cause); emergency room visit rate; cardiology visit rate; primary care visit rate; body functions; work ability; return to previous living conditions; activities of daily living and patient satisfaction (worthwhile use, willing to use again).

Results: 591 records were identified through database searching and 28 additional records were identified through other sources; 428 remained after duplicates were removed. One hundred full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and after the exclusion of 76 full-text articles, five high quality SRs and 19 full text published RCTs were included in our SR. Of the included RCTs, only three were judged to be of low risk of bias. STS produced a mortality benefit and reduced HF-specific readmission rates. For the outcomes QoL and utilization the evidence was insufficient. Yet, the majority of studies presented statistically significant QoL improvements. A majority of the RCTs found no significant difference in the number of emergency room visits in either group. Since little evidence was identified on the potential harms of STS (described in the Safety Domain), it was not possible to assess overall benefits and harms of STS in adults with chronic heart failure. No evidence found to answer some assessment element questions, related on outcomes such as work ability, return to previous living conditions, activities of daily living, worthwhile of STS and willing to use STS again.

Conclusion: STS reduces HF-specific readmission and mortality. A majority of the studies presented statistically significant improvements in QoL. Some research gaps and transferability issues were recognized. Further research is needed on effects of STS on QoL and utilization outcomes as well as patient satisfaction during long term follow-up.

Introduction

The Clinical Effectiveness Domains describes the range and size of beneficial health effects expected through the use of the technology {HTA Core Model Handbook Online, Version 1.5}. The two key elements are that effective interventions should be directly compared and studied in patients who are typical of day-to-day health care settings {HTA Core Model Application for Pharmaceuticals, 2.0}.

The aim of this relative effectiveness assessment was to determine whether treatment with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV), without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRTs) or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure, improves clinical outcomes and quality of life, has impact on patients’ satisfaction and function, and change in management or utilization of health service compared with current practice.

Primary outcomes were mortality (overall and disease-specific), morbidity (disease-specific symptoms, progression) and Health-related quality of life (HRQL).

Secondary outcomes were impact on re-hospitalization rate (disease-specific, all-cause); emergency room visit rate; cardiology visit rate; primary care visit rate; body function; work ability; return to previous living conditions; activities of daily living and patient satisfaction (worthwhile use, willing to use again).

For this relative effectiveness assessment we planned to find and update recent, high quality systematic review (SR), with PICO (Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome) scheme relevant for this assessment. Whitlock et al. 2008 { } and Robinson et al. 2014 { } in their published articles, regarding how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new systematic reviews, found that consensus among systematic review organizations and the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews already exist, but areas of uncertainty remain: how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. According their published data, use of existing systematic reviews may include: (1) using the existing systematic review(s)’ listing of included studies as a quality check for the literature search and screening strategy conducted for the new review (Scan References); (2) using the existing systematic review(s) to completely or partially provide the body of included studies for one or more Key Questions in the new review (Use Existing Search); (3) using the data abstraction, risk of bias assessments, and/or analyses from existing systematic reviews for one or more Key Questions in the new review (Use Data Abstraction/Syntheses), or (4) using the existing systematic review(s), including conclusions, to fully or partially answer one or more Key Questions in the new review (Use Complete Review).

Methodology

Frame

The collection scope is used in this domain.

TechnologyStructured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure
Description

Telemonitoring via structured telephone support with focus on patient reported signs (symptoms of congestion, peripheral edema, pulmonary congestion, dyspnea on exertion, abdominal fullness), medication adherence, physiological data (like heart rate, blood pressure, body weight – measured by the patient with home-device), activity level; done in regular schedules using risk stratification (with fixed algorithm by call center staff or experience-based by specialized staff); done by dedicated call centers, center-based staff, nurses, AND reduced visits to a GP or heart center

Intended use of the technologyPrevention

Remote transmission of information to alleviate symptoms, relieve suffering and allow timely treatment for chronic heart failure

Target condition
Chronic cardiac failure
Target condition description

Heart failure is a condition in which the heart has lost the ability to pump enough blood to the body's tissues. With too little blood being delivered, the organs and other tissues do not receive enough oxygen and nutrients to function properly.

Target population

Target population sex: Any. Target population age: adults and elderly. Target population group: Patients who have the target condition.

Target population description

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF; defined as I50 http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/I00-I99/I30-I52/I50-/I50 ) AND hospitalization due to heart failure at least once  AND without implanted devices

ComparisonUsual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist or patient has to move (≠ at home)
Description

Usual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist; patient has to move (≠ at home)

Outcomes

Mortality (disease specific and all cause) progressions, admissions, re-admissions, QoL or HRQoL, harms

Assessment elements

TopicIssue RelevantResearch questions or rationale for irrelevance
D0001MortalityWhat is the expected beneficial effect of the intervention on overall mortality?yesWhat is the effects of Structured telephone support (STS) on overall mortality in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
D0002MortalityWhat is the expected beneficial effect on the disease-specific mortality?yesWhat is the effects of Structured telephone support (STS) on disease-specific mortality in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS) ?
D0003MortalityWhat is the effect of the technology on the mortality due to causes other than the target disease?noRelevant only for the target disease.
D0005MorbidityHow does the technology affect symptoms and findings (severity, frequency) of the target condition?yesHow does Structured telephone support (STS) affect disease-specific symptoms and findings (severity, frequency) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
D0006MorbidityHow does the technology affect the progression (or recurrence) of the target condition?yesHow does Structured telephone support (STS) affect the progression of chronic heart failure of adults patients, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
D0010Change-in managementHow does the technology modify the need for hospitalization?yesDoes Structured telephone support (STS) impact on the re-hospitalization rate (disease-specific and all-cause) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
D0023Change-in managementHow does the technology modify the need for other technologies and use of resources?yesDoes Structured telephone support (STS) impact on the emergency room visit rate (disease-specific) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Does Structured telephone support (STS) impact on the cardiology visit rate (disease-specific) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Does Structured telephone support (STS) impact on the primary care visit rate (disease-specific) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
D0012Health-related Quality of lifeWhat is the effect of the technology on generic health-related quality of life?yesWhat is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on generic health-related quality of life of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
D0013Health-related Quality of lifeWhat is the effect of the technology on disease specific quality of life?yesWhat is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on disease specific quality of life of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
D0011FunctionWhat is the effect of the technology on patients’ body functionsyesWhat is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on body functions of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
D0014FunctionWhat is the effect of the technology on work ability?yesWhat is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on work ability of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
D0015FunctionWhat is the effect of the technology on return to previous living conditions?yesWhat is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on return to previous living conditions of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
D0016FunctionHow does use of the technology affect activities of daily living?yesHow does Structured telephone support (STS) affects activities of daily living of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
D0017Patient satisfactionWas the use of the technology worthwhile?yesWas the use of Structured telephone support (STS) worthwhile?
D0018Patient satisfactionIs the patient willing to use the technology again?yesAre adults with chronic heart failure willing to use the Structured telephone support (STS) again?
D0029Benefit-harm balanceWhat are the overall benefits and harms of the technology in health outcomes?yesWhat are the overall benefits and harms of the Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure?
C0006Patient safetyWhat are the consequences of false positive, false negative and incidental findings generated by using the technology from the viewpoint of patient safety?noNot important for Structured telephone support (STS).

Methodology description

A systematic literature search, according the predefined search strategy (Appendix 1) (not limited by publication date but limited to English language), was performed according to the Cochrane methodology {Higgins 2011}, in standard medical and HTA databases.

Information sources

Specifically, the following databases were searched: MEDLINE accessed through OVID or Pubmed; CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost), SCI-EXPANDED (Web of ScienceTM Core Collection) and Cochrane Library searching the following databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Reviews), The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and The Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA).

This was complemented by hand search of the following websites: http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/health-technology-assessment; http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/publications.htm; http://guidance.nice.org.uk/Date; http://hta.lbg.ac.at; http://kce.fgov.be; http://www.hiqa.ie/; http://www.agenas.it. The reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and health technology assessment reports were checked for relevant studies.

In addition, the following clinical trials registries were assessed, for registered ongoing clinical trials or results posted: ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, EU Clinical Trials Register, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

Relevant references (after duplicates were removed) were screened and assessed for eligibility independently by two reviewers. References have been included or excluded according to the overall research question, Population-Intervention-Control-Outcome (PICO)-scheme (as described in Project Scope),  and the inclusion/exclusion criteria listed below:

Q What are the effects of Structured telephone support (STS) on adults with chronic heart failure?

P Individuals aged 16 or more with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV), without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRTs) or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure

I Structured telephone support (STS)

C Usual care (UC) without Structured telephone support (STS)

O Domain Specific Outcomes: mortality (overall and disease-specific); morbidity (disease-specific symptoms, progression); re-hospitalization rate (disease-specific, all-cause); emergency room visit rate; cardiology visit rate; primary care visit rate; Health-related quality of life (HRQL): both generic and disease-specific; body function; work ability; return to previous living conditions; activities of daily living; patient satisfaction (worthwhile use, willing to use again)

Study Design 

D Evidence synthesis studies (SRs, HTA reports) [updating RCTs i.e. RCT fitting the PICO which have been published after the last search date of the latest SR/HTA document]

 

Inclusion criteria:

1) SRs and HTAs and RCTs comparing chronic heart failure patients management /New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV, without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRTs) or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure/ delivered via structured telephone support with usual care;

2) Patients are randomized to structured telephone support or usual care without structured telephone support (STS);

3) One or more of the EFF outcomes were reported;

4) Sufficient methodological details are reported to allow critical appraisal of study quality;

5) Publication in English;

6) Report on humans only.

 

Exclusion criteria:

Primary or secondary studies which:

1) Do not involve adult patients with CHF /New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV, without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), CRTs or pacemakers, who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure/;  

2)  Do not compare CHF management delivered via structured telephone support with usual care in patients with CHF living within the community;

3) Home visits were performed as part of the intervention or by the clinical staff involved in the intervention

4) Do not provide data for our outcomes of interest in an extractable format;

5) Papers with RCTs without sufficient methodological details to allow critical appraisal of study quality;

6) The papers (publications) published in a language other than English; 

7) Duplicate of original publication.

 

Differences in selection results were discussed in order to achieve consensus; a third reviewer were involved in case of disagreement. The study selection process was presented according to the PRISMA flowchart {Liberati 2009} (Appendix 2).

Finding and updating a recent, high quality SR (with PICO scheme relevant for this relative effectiveness assessment) was planned. The publications by Whitlock et al. 2008 { } and Robinson et al. 2014 { }, regarding how to integrate existing SRs into new SRs, were used. To answer our research questions all four approaches in using existing systematic reviews, described in Robinson et al. 2014 { }, were used: (1) using the existing SR(s)’ listing of included studies as a quality check for the literature search and screening strategy conducted for the new review (Scan References); (2) using the existing SR(s) to completely or partially provide the body of included studies for one or more Key Questions in the new review (Use Existing Search); (3) using the data abstraction, risk of bias assessments, and/or analyses from existing SRs for one or more Key Questions in the new review (Use Data Abstraction/Syntheses), and (4) using the existing SR(s), including conclusions, to fully or partially answer one or more Key Questions in this SR (Use Complete Review).

Quality assessment tools or criteria

(Write your text here)

The quality of the included SR was assessed using AMSTAR {Shea 2007}.

Risk of bias of included RCTs was evaluated independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias checklist and EUnetHTA methods guidelines on internal validity of RCTs {Higgins 2011; EUnetHTA 2013}.

Direct evidence on primary outcomes was planned to be assessed by using the GRADE-methodology {Guyatt 2008}. This approach specifies four levels of quality:

High: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect;

Moderate: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimates;

Low: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate;

Very low: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

Analysis and synthesis

(Write your text here)

Data extraction was performed by one reviewer on pre-defined extraction tables and double-checked regarding completeness and accuracy by a second reviewer. Any differences in extraction results were discussed to achieve consensus; a third reviewer was involved in case of disagreement.

The following information was extracted from included secondary studies (SRs or HTAs):Study general information: Author; Year of publication; Reference number; Study objectives; Study characteristics: Study types included in the review; Number of studies included in the review; Review timeframe; Comparison(s); Patients groups (number of patients and health technology used) in the included studies; Outcomes and follow-up: Main outcomes reported; Main study findings; Conclusions: Authors' conclusions. (Appendix 3)

The following information was extracted from included primary studies:

Data on Study characteristics (study design, registration number, country and centre, study period, ethics committee approval, sponsor, study methodology); Patient characteristics (age, gender, NYHA I-IV); Outcomes; Intervention; Comparator; Flow of patients; Statistical analysis; Results on primary and secondary outcomes; and Conflict of interest data were extracted. (Appendix 4)

Quantitative synthesis from existing SRs were used and presented in Result section wherever appropiate. No new meta-analysis was performed.

Result cards

Mortality

Result card for EFF1: "What is the effects of Structured telephone support (STS) on overall mortality in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
EFF1: What is the effects of Structured telephone support (STS) on overall mortality in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

Result card for EFF2: "What is the effects of Structured telephone support (STS) on disease-specific mortality in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS) ?"

View full card
EFF2: What is the effects of Structured telephone support (STS) on disease-specific mortality in adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS) ?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Morbidity

Result card for EFF3: "How does Structured telephone support (STS) affect disease-specific symptoms and findings (severity, frequency) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
EFF3: How does Structured telephone support (STS) affect disease-specific symptoms and findings (severity, frequency) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for EFF4: "How does Structured telephone support (STS) affect the progression of chronic heart failure of adults patients, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
EFF4: How does Structured telephone support (STS) affect the progression of chronic heart failure of adults patients, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Change-in management

Result card for EFF5: "Does Structured telephone support (STS) impact on the re-hospitalization rate (disease-specific and all-cause) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
EFF5: Does Structured telephone support (STS) impact on the re-hospitalization rate (disease-specific and all-cause) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for EFF6a: "Does Structured telephone support (STS) impact on the emergency room visit rate (disease-specific) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?", EFF6b: "Does Structured telephone support (STS) impact on the cardiology visit rate (disease-specific) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?" and EFF6c: "Does Structured telephone support (STS) impact on the primary care visit rate (disease-specific) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
EFF6a: Does Structured telephone support (STS) impact on the emergency room visit rate (disease-specific) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

EFF6b: Does Structured telephone support (STS) impact on the cardiology visit rate (disease-specific) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

EFF6c: Does Structured telephone support (STS) impact on the primary care visit rate (disease-specific) of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Health-related Quality of life

Result card for EFF7: "What is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on generic health-related quality of life of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
EFF7: What is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on generic health-related quality of life of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for EFF8: "What is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on disease specific quality of life of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
EFF8: What is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on disease specific quality of life of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Function

Result card for EFF9: "What is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on body functions of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
EFF9: What is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on body functions of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Optional

Transferability: Partially

Result card for EFF10: "What is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on work ability of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
EFF10: What is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on work ability of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Optional

Transferability: Partially

Result card for EFF11: "What is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on return to previous living conditions of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
EFF11: What is the effect of Structured telephone support (STS) on return to previous living conditions of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Optional

Transferability: Partially

Result card for EFF12: "How does Structured telephone support (STS) affects activities of daily living of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
EFF12: How does Structured telephone support (STS) affects activities of daily living of adults with chronic heart failure, compared to standard care without Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Result

Importance: Optional

Transferability: Partially

Patient satisfaction

Result card for EFF13: "Was the use of Structured telephone support (STS) worthwhile?"

View full card
EFF13: Was the use of Structured telephone support (STS) worthwhile?
Method
Result

Importance: Optional

Transferability: Partially

Result card for EFF14: "Are adults with chronic heart failure willing to use the Structured telephone support (STS) again?"

View full card
EFF14: Are adults with chronic heart failure willing to use the Structured telephone support (STS) again?
Method
Result

Importance: Optional

Transferability: Partially

Benefit-harm balance

Result card for EFF15: "What are the overall benefits and harms of the Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure?"

View full card
EFF15: What are the overall benefits and harms of the Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure?
Method
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Discussion

The aim of this relative effectiveness assessment was to determine whether treatment with Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-IV) and without implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), CRTs or pacemakers who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure, improves clinical outcomes and quality of life, has impact on patients’ satisfaction and function, and change in management or utilization of health service compared with current practice.

Five existing SRs have been integrated {Feltner et al, 2014; Kotb et al, 2015; Pandor et al, 2013; Inglis et al, 2011; Clark et al, 2007} according to the methodology described in Whitlock et al. 2008 { } and Robinson et al. 2014 { }, into this SR. Additionally, 19 RCTs have been included to answer domain assessment element questions that were not answered by the five SRs. We were faced with already recognized areas of uncertainty: how to appropriately synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews.

STS produced a mortality benefit and reduced HF-specific readmission rates. In the most recent SR and HTA published by Feltner et al, 2014 { }, STS interventions produced a mortality benefit, with  RR (95% CI) 0.74 (0.56–0.97), in time period of 3-6 months, with Number needed to treat (NNT) of 27. Kotb et al, 2015 { } in Network meta-analysis (NMA), reported that structured telephone support significantly reduced the odds of mortality (Odds Ratio 0.80; 95% Credible Intervals [0.66 to 0.96]) compared to usual care. Pandor et al, 2013 { } with data from 11 studies evaluated STS, with duration of follow-up ranged from 6 months to 18 months, found that compared with usual care, STS HH was beneficial (but not statistically significant) in reducing all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.55 to 1.08]. No favourable effect on mortality was observed with STS HM.

A majority of the studies (included in five published SRs) reported significantly lower HF-specific re-hospitalisation rate in STS group {Feltner 2014, Kotb 2015, Pandor 2013, Inglis 2011, Clark 2007}. Feltner et al, 2014 { } reported that 14 patients needed to be treated with structured telephone support (STS) interventions to reduced HF-specific readmission (NNT of 14). When sensitivity analysis was done including only RCT with follow-up period longer than 6 months this difference was not statisticaly significant anymore {Inglis 2011}. Two recently published RCTs  {Angermann 2012, Krum 2013} with 6 and 12 months follow-up period, reported non-significant difference in HF-specific re-hospitalization between STS and Usual care groups.

Few RCTs measured QoL or function using the same measures at similar time points; the limited data showed conflicting results. Insufficient evidence was found to answer questions related with utilization outcomes as well, so the evidence base was inadequate to make final conclusion for these outcomes. However, a majority of the studies presented statistically significant QoL improvements. Data found on the emergency room (ER) visit rate in STS group comparing with usual care was conflicting, but a majority of the results found no significant difference in the number of emergency room visits in either group. The same is true for the the most recent SR and HTA published by Feltner et al, 2014 { }; STS interventions had no effect on the rate of ER visits over 3 to 6 months. According the number of general practitioners visits, Krum et al, 2013 { }, during 12 months period, showed reduction in the utilization of general practitioners, with the control group visiting their general practitioner more than twice as often as the intervention group.

Since little evidence identified on the potential harms of STS {Chaudhry et al, 2010}, as described in Safety Domain, it was not possible to answer on overall benefits and harms of the Structured telephone support (STS) in adults with chronic heart failure.

We could not find answers to some of the assessment element questions, such as work ability, return to previous living conditions, activities of daily living, worthwhile of STS and willing to use STS again. For example no SRs, HTAs or RCTs have addressed the question “Was the use of Structured telephone support (STS) worthwhile?”. Indirect answers could be found in further RCTs (included in Inglis et al SR, published 2011 { }); showing that satisfaction (acceptance) of patients receiving health care via technology was rated between 76% to 100% {Clark 2007b; Krum 2009; Cleland 2005}. In the work by Laramee et al, 2003 { } patients in the intervention group were significantly more satisfied with their care in 13 of 16 items than the usual care group (P=.01). In RCT published by Riegel et al, 2002 { } patients in the intervention group were significantly more satisfied at 6 months with their care in STS than the usual care group (22.88±2.85 vs 6.17±4.87).

Out of 19 RCTs included in our new SR only three RCTs were judged as low risk of bias {DeBusk 2004, GESICA 2005, Chaudhry 2010},

Direct evidence on primary outcomes was not assessed by using the GRADE-methodology {Guyatt 2008} as planned, because of heterogeneity of follow up periods and quantitative synthesis from existing SRs was used and presented in the result section for specific outcomes.

Further research is needed on effects of STS on QoL and utilization outcomes as well as long term follow-up of patient satisfaction. Several methodological issues should be solved in future research on STS on QoL and utilization outcomes, like masking outcome assessment as well as clear description of usual care and long term follow up (12 month or longer). For answering questions related to patient satisfaction, other study designs than RCT could be appropriate; this part of assessment could be completely covered by Social aspects (SOC) Domain of the future versions of the full Core HTA Model.

Some methodological limitations that may affect comparability and applicability of the data reported in RCTs and SRs could be listed, such as different approaches of usual care as well of structured telephone support (different telephone follow-up, information or education provided pre-discharge, etc.); different providers of STS interventions (provided by pharmacist, physicians or nurses) and their experience in providing the STS.

The STS interventions presented in this assessment are applicable only to patients who are discharged to their home; it remains unclear whether STS interventions would benefit patients who are discharged to another institution. Also, due another limitation - narrow scope of our assessment, our results are not applicable to patients with chronic heart failure with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds) or pacemakers. Hindricks et al. 2014 and Parthiban et al. 2015 recently published data on remote monitoring in this selected group of patients { }. Due the fact that RCTs included in our assessment were published in a time  period ranging from 1999 to 2013, “usual care” in trials published earlier probably is not the same as “usual care”used in the most recent RCTs. Moreover, in general, trials did not report details of usual care. It also remains unclear if STS interventions in adults with chronic heart failure (who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure) will lead to different outcomes in rural or urban settings.

Authors of this assessment found some difficulties in full Core HTA Model, previously recognized, which will be solved in future versions of the Core Model (for example possible overlaps or duplication with other Domains assessment elements questions, need for grouping some of assessment element questions to avoid unnecessary slicing, as well as some problems with format of reporting). 

References

Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinskon KA. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Int Med. 2008;148(10):776-82.

Robinson KA, Whitlock EP, O’Neil ME, Anderson JK, Hartling L, Dryden DM, Butler M, et al. Integration of Existing Systematic Reviews. Research White Paper (Prepared by the Scientific Resource Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00004-C). AHRQ Publication No. 14-EHC016-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2014. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

 

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810543/pdf/1471-2288-7-10.pdf

European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Level of evidence. Internal validity of randomized controlled trials. EunetHTA; 2013.

 

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of reccomendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924-6

 

Feltner C, Jones CD, Cené CW, Zheng ZJ, Sueta CA, Coker-Schwimmer EJ, et al. Transitional Care Interventions to Prevent Readmissions for Persons With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(11):774-8.

 

Feltner C, Jones CD, Cené CW, Zheng Z-J, Sueta CA, Coker-Schwimmer EJL, Arvanitis M, Lohr KN, Middleton JC, Jonas DE. Transitional Care Interventions To Prevent Readmissions for People With Heart Failure. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 133. (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00008-I). AHRQ Publication No. 14-EHC021-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; May 2014. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

 

Kotb A, Cameron C, Hsieh S, Wells G. Comparative Effectiveness of Different Forms of Telemedicine for Individuals with Heart Failure (HF): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE. 2015; 10(2):e0118681.

 

Pandor A, Thokala P, Gomersall T, Baalbaki H, Stevens JW, Wang J, et al. Home telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes after recent discharge in patients with heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(32).

 

Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Ball J, Lewinter C, Cullington D, Stewart S, Cleland JGF. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010, Issue 8. Art. No.:CD007228.

 

Clark RA, Inglis SC, McAlister FA, Cleland JGF, Stewart S. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2007:doi:10.1136/bmj.39156.536968.55

 

Angermann CE, Stoerk S, Gelbrich G, Faller H, Jahns R, Frantz S, et al. Competence Network Heart Failure. Mode of action and effects of standardized collaborative disease management on mortality and morbidity in patients with systolic heart failure: the Interdisciplinary Network for Heart Failure (INH) study. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5:25-35.

Barth V. A nurse-managed discharge program for congestive heart failure patients: outcomes and costs. Home Health Care Management and Practice. 2001;13(6):436–43.

 

Cleland JG, Louis AA, Rigby AS, Janssens U, Balk AH, TEN-HMS Investigators. Noninvasive home telemonitoring for patients with heart failure at high risk of recurrent admission and death: The Trans-European Network-Home-Care Management System (TEN-HMS) study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2005;45(10):1654–64.

Chaudhry SI, Mattera JA, Curtis JP, Spertus JA, Herrin J, Lin Z, et al. Telemonitoring in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2301–9.

DeBusk RF, Miller NH, Parker KM, Bandura A, Kraemer HC, Cher DJ, et al.Care management for lowrisk patients with heart failure: A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2004;141(8):606–13.

DeWalt DA, Malone RM, Bryant ME, Kosnar MC, Corr KE, Rothman RL, et al. A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: A randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170]. BMC Health Services Research. 2006;6:30.

Galbreath AD, Krasuski RA, Smith B, Stajduhar KC, Kwan MD, Ellis R, et al. Long-term healthcare and cost outcomes of disease management in a large, randomized, community-based population with heart  failure. Circulation. 2004;110(23):3518–26.

 

Gattis WA, Hasselblad V, Whellan DJ, O’Connor CM. Reduction in heart failure events by the addition of a clinical  pharmacist to the heart failure management team. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1999;159:1939–45.

GESICA Investigators. Randomised trial of telephone intervention in chronic heart failure: DIAL trial. British Medical Journal. 2005;331(7514):425.

Laramee AS, Levinsky SK, Sargent J, Ross R, Callas P. Case management in a heterogeneous congestive heart failure population: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2003;163:809–817.

Mortara A, Pinna GD, Johnson P, Maestri R, Capomolla S, La Rovere MT, et al. Home telemonitoring in heart failure patients: The HHH study (Home or Hospital in Heart Failure). European Journal of Heart Failure. 2009;11:312–318.

 

Rainville EC. Impact of pharmacist intervention on hospital readmissions for heart failure. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. 1999;56:1339–42.

Ramachandran K, Husain N, Maikhuri R, Seth S, Vij A, Kumar M, et al. Impact of a comprehensive telephonebased disease management programme on quality-of-life in patients with heart failure. Natl Med J India. 2007;20:67–73.

Riegel B, Carlson B, Kopp Z, LePetri B, Glaser D, Unger A. Effect of a standardized nurse case-management telephone intervention on resource use in patients with chronic heart failure. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2002;162:705–12.

Riegel B, Carlson B, Glaser D, Romero T. Randomized Controlled Trial of Telephone Case Management in Hispanics of Mexican Origin With Heart Failure. Journal of Cardiac Failure. 2006;12(3):211–19.

Sisk JE, Hebert PL, Horowitz CR, McLaughlin MA, Wang JJ, Chassin MR. Effects of nurse management on the quality of heart failure care in minority communities: A randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2006;145:273–83.

 

Tsuyuki RT, Fradette M, Johnson JA, Bungard TJ, Eurich DT, Ashton T, et al. A multicenter disease management program for hospitalized patients with heart failure. J Cardiac Fail. 2004;10:473–80.

 

Wakefield BJ, Ward MM, Holman JE, Ray A, Scherubel M, Burns TL, et al. Evaluation of home telehealth following hospitalization for heart failure: a randomized trial. Telemed J E Health.2008;14:753–61.

 

Krum H, Forbes A, Yallop J, Driscoll A, Croucher J, Chan B, et al. Telephone Support to Rural and Remote Patients with Heart Failure: The Chronic Heart Failure Assessment by Telephone (CHAT) study. Cardiovascular Therapeutics. 2013;31:230–37.

Hindricks G, Taborsky M, Glikson M, Heinrich U, Schumacher B, Katz A et al. Implant-based multiparameter telemonitoring  of patients with heart failure (IN-TIME): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2014;384:583–90.

Parthiban N, Esterman A, Mahajan R, Twomey DJ, Pathak RK, Lau DH et al.  Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(24):2591-600.

Appendices

Appendix 1.     Search strategy, June 2015

EFF Appendix 1

Appendix 2. Flow chart of study selection

Figure 1. Flow chart of study selection, according to the PRISMA flowchart {Liberati 2009}

EFF Appendix 2

 

Appendix 3. Characteristics of included secondary studies: Systematic reviews/HTA, main study findings and authors conclusions

 

EFF Appendix 3

Appendix 4. RCTs included in SR of effectiveness and safety: Evidence tables and Risk of bias tables

EFF Appendix 4

Appendix 5.  List of included studies (RCTs) in the secondary studies (SRs or HTAs)

EFF Appendix 5

Appendix 6. List of included studies (RCTs) in this Systematic review of Clinical Effectiveness/Safety with Follow-up duration and Risk of bias

EFF Appendix 6

Appendix 7.  List of Ongoing RCTs in clinical trials registries

EFF Appendix 7

 

 

Costs and economic evaluation

Authors: Neill Booth, Taru Haula and Heidi Stuerzlinger (supported by Ingrid Rosian-Schikuta).

Summary

In this summary, as set out in the guidance for undertaking this pilot assessment using the HTA Core Model 2.0, we only summarise the results of the ECO domain. The results themselves can be found from the Results Card –section of the ECO domain. Details on the aim of the ECO domain and its research questions can be found from the ECO Introduction. Details on the methods used can be found from the ECO Methodolgy sections, and discussion can be found from the ECO discussion -section and from the Collection summary.

It became apparent from the results of our systematic literature search (see the Methodology section below) and our review of the results from other domains that the meaning of the term Structured telephone support (STS) varies quite widely across the studies. Hence, there is no explicit definition STS and, instead, the term is refers to a diverse set of approaches to care management for adults with chronic heart failure using telephonic networks. Depending on the approach taken to STS, a range of different pieces of information can be collected by telephone from patients, and any such information can be handled and utilised by the management team or system in a large number of ways. Therefore, one main result of the ECO domain is that variation in the nature of the intervention poses major challenges to undertaking meaningful examination of intervention costs and to undertaking economic evaluations. If each type of STS intervention, has both different components and consequences, this has a significant effect on ability to make meaningful estimates of costs and to undertake robust economic evaluations. For this reason, we do not summarise the results of the studies per se but, instead, briefly describe those studies found.

Four published pieces of research from the systematic review were found to be useful in this domain ({1, 3, 4 & 5}, see also Appendix ECO-2: PRISMA 2009 Flow Diagram). One of these, a European economic evaluation by Klersy et al. (2011) {1}, was only used to describe costs and three of these were also used to produce the results pertaining to economic evaluation {3, 4 & 5}. The first of the included economic evaluations is a North American modelling study published in 2009 by Miller et al. (2009) {3}, it estimates the cost-effectiveness for a subset of the patients with chronic heart failure, namely for patients with systolic heart failure. The second was a cost-effectiveness study by Klersy et al. (2011) {1} and reported an analysis which combined evidence on both remote monitoring (RM) and on STS. However, as this article included information from cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, it was, as an example of an economic evaluation, classified as being outside the scope of this pilot assessment using the HTA Core Model 2.0. One additional study, Herbert et al. (2008) {2}, was found through the search of the references of the papers retrieved following the systematic search. Although this study reported a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis, it was excluded due to its focus on a very specific, non-European ethnic population. The third and fourth economic evaluations were pieces of British research by Pandor et al. (2013) {4} and Thokala et al. (2013) {5}.  It both of these it was noted that clear descriptions of STS interventions and usual care were not provided in many of the studies they reviewed and that this has potentially major implications for the robustness of analyses of costs, outcomes, and economic efficiency.

Introduction

The ‘Costs and economic evaluation’ -domain (ECO) within the HTA Core Model 2.0 aims to provide information about the relative costs and ‘cost-effectiveness’ of the health-care technologies under assessment {6}. This pilot assessment presents information on costs and economic evaluation about structured telephone support (STS) and ‘usual care’ for adults with chronic heart failure (i.e., patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification I to IV and without implantable cardiac defibrillators, cardiac resynchronisation therapy devices or pacemakers) who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure). As set out in the TEC -domain, STS refers to a specific set of approaches to remote heart-failure monitoring or self-care management. Often using simple telephone technology, STS contacts can be planned according to a schedule, or initiated by a computerised system or by a healthcare professional (e.g., nurse, physician, social worker or pharmacist). As part of a wide variety of approaches to STS, different types of patient data are collected and stored electronically. In the case of a STS human-to-machine interfaces (HM) this can be done by a computerised system or, in the case of a STS human-to-human interactions (HH), this can be done by a healthcare professional. Data can then be reviewed by healthcare professionals and, if necessary and possible, action can be undertaken. Extensive details concerning usual care are not, in general, well reported in the clinical effectiveness literature (see EFF discussion).

Within the constraints of this HTA Core Model 2.0 pilot assessment we surveyed the potential for the creation of a costing template or a model to assess budget impact (e.g., a cost template for Budget Impact Analysis (BIA)). However, after systematically searching the literature and reviewing the information from the CUR, TEC, SAF, EFF, SOC and ORG domains, it was clear that it would not be viable to attempt to produce a useful BIA costing template or a de novo economic model. This was mainly due to the diverse nature of the interventions covered by the label STS, and due to a lack of robust evidence on both costs and effectiveness. Therefore, in what follows we report a qualitative analysis of the available information, starting with the information on costs, we offer as full an answer as we can to the research questions which deal with costs, i.e., in ECO1, ECO2 and ECO3. In ECO4 we report findings from the literature and from other domains, such as SAF and EFF on the effectiveness of ‘STS’ versus ‘usual care’. In ECO 5 we describe some of the information from the economic evaluation literature relating to ‘STS’ versus ‘usual care’, and in ECO6, ECO7 and ECO8 we extend this qualitative assessment of the available information.

Methodology

Frame

The collection scope is used in this domain.

TechnologyStructured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure
Description

Telemonitoring via structured telephone support with focus on patient reported signs (symptoms of congestion, peripheral edema, pulmonary congestion, dyspnea on exertion, abdominal fullness), medication adherence, physiological data (like heart rate, blood pressure, body weight – measured by the patient with home-device), activity level; done in regular schedules using risk stratification (with fixed algorithm by call center staff or experience-based by specialized staff); done by dedicated call centers, center-based staff, nurses, AND reduced visits to a GP or heart center

Intended use of the technologyPrevention

Remote transmission of information to alleviate symptoms, relieve suffering and allow timely treatment for chronic heart failure

Target condition
Chronic cardiac failure
Target condition description

Heart failure is a condition in which the heart has lost the ability to pump enough blood to the body's tissues. With too little blood being delivered, the organs and other tissues do not receive enough oxygen and nutrients to function properly.

Target population

Target population sex: Any. Target population age: adults and elderly. Target population group: Patients who have the target condition.

Target population description

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF; defined as I50 http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/I00-I99/I30-I52/I50-/I50 ) AND hospitalization due to heart failure at least once  AND without implanted devices

ComparisonUsual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist or patient has to move (≠ at home)
Description

Usual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist; patient has to move (≠ at home)

Outcomes

Mortality (disease specific and all cause) progressions, admissions, re-admissions, QoL or HRQoL, harms

Assessment elements

TopicIssue RelevantResearch questions or rationale for irrelevance
E0001Resource utilizationWhat types of resources are used when delivering the assessed technology and its comparators (resource-use identification)?yesWhat types of resources are used when delivering Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, usual care' without STS (resource-use identification)?
E0002Resource utilizationWhat amounts of resources are used when delivering the assessed technology and its comparators (resource-use measurement)?yesWhat amounts of resources are used when delivering Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, 'usual care' without STS (resource-use measurement)?
E0009Resource utilizationWhat were the measured and/or estimated costs of the assessed technology and its comparator(s) (resource-use valuation)?yesWhat were the measured and/or estimated costs of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, 'usual care' without STS (resource-use valuation)?
E0005Measurement and estimation of outcomesWhat is(are) the measured and/or estimated health-related outcome(s) of the assessed technology and its comparator(s)?yesWhat is (are) the measured and/or estimated health-related outcome(s) of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, 'usual care' without STS?
E0006Examination of costs and outcomesWhat are the estimated differences in costs and outcomes between the technology and its comparator(s)?yesWhat are the estimated differences in costs and outcomes between Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, 'usual care' without STS?
E0010Characterising uncertaintyWhat are the uncertainties surrounding the costs and economic evaluation(s) of the technology and its comparator(s)?yesWhat are the uncertainties surrounding the costs and economic evaluation(s) of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, 'usual care' without STS?
E0011Characterising heterogeneityTo what extent can differences in costs, outcomes, or ‘cost effectiveness’ be explained by variations between any subgroups using the technology and its comparator(s)?yesTo what extent can differences in costs, outcomes, or ‘cost effectiveness’ be explained by variations between any subgroups using Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, 'usual care' without STS?
E0012Validity of the model(s)To what extent can the estimates of costs, outcomes, or economic evaluation(s) be considered as providing valid descriptions of the technology and its comparator(s)?yesTo what extent can the estimates of costs, outcomes, or economic evaluation(s) be considered as providing valid descriptions of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, 'usual care' without STS?

Methodology description

A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2015 by information specialist Jaana Isojärvi (THL, Finland) to find published studies on the costs and economic evaluation of structured telephone support for adult patients with chronic heart failure.

 

Information sources

The following databases were searched:

•           Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (HTA, NHS EED, DARE)

•           Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

•           Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

•           MEDLINE (via Ovid)

•           NLM PubMed

•           SCOPUS

•           Journals@Ovid Full Text

•           CINAHL (via EBSCOhost)

•           PsycInfo (via EBSCOhost)

•           Web of Science

•           CEA Registry

A methodological search filter based on the filter developed in Healthcare Improvement Scotland was used. The systematic search strategy for this domain is presented in Appendix ECO-1.

In addition to database searches, we looked at the search results from Clinical Effectiveness, Safety and Social Aspects domains as well as the results from the searches undertaken according to the scope of the whole assessment using the HTA Core Model 2.0.

Articles that fit with the agreed PICO structure and presented estimations of outcomes and costs were searched using a two-stage process. All titles and abstracts were examined for inclusion by at least two reviewers and those chosen for potential inclusion were then examined as full-text articles by the same reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved through deliberation. In the end, four articles relevant for the questions in ECO domain were included from the 55 potentially relevant records identified through searching the databases and other sources. A flow-chart prepared according to the 2009 PRISMA statement is presented in Appendix ECO-2. Although the methodological quality of the included studies was not formally assessed, we undertook to describe the available information concerning costs and to describe relevant information from economic evaluations, using the method outlined in the section ‘Quality assessment tools or criteria’ below.

 

Quality assessment tools or criteria

We utilised the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement checklist ({7}) in the following way: each item in the checklist was examined by two authors for coherence between the reporting in the economic evaluations reviewed and the CHEERS checklist -items and any disagreements were resolved through discussions (see Appendix ECO-3). Although the CHEERS checklist is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication, when reviewing existing literature it has a potential role in identifying issues which may make the use of information from any economic evaluation less appropriate when undertaking assessment using the HTA Core Model 2.0.

 

Analysis and synthesis

The ECO -domain authors had the intention to produce a costing template for budget impact analysis (BIA) modelling, but due to a lack of robust evidence on costs (e.g., as noted by the ORG domain) and a lack of robust evidence on effectiveness (e.g., as noted by the SAF and EFF domains), the ECO -domain authors could not justify attempting to produce a de novo health-economic model or a costing template. Therefore, in what follows we report a qualitative analysis of the information which was available, starting with the information on costs. We offer as full an answer as we can to the research questions which deal with costs, i.e., in ECO1, ECO2 and ECO3. In ECO4 we report findings from the literature and from other domains, such as SAF and EFF on the effectiveness of ‘STS’ versus ‘usual care’. In ECO5 we describe some of the information from the economic evaluation literature relating to ‘STS’ versus ‘usual care’, and in ECO6, ECO7 and ECO8, go on to try to extend this qualitative assessment of the available information.

Result cards

Resource utilization

Result card for ECO1: "What types of resources are used when delivering Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, usual care&#39; without STS (resource-use identification)?"

View full card
ECO1: What types of resources are used when delivering Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, usual care&#39; without STS (resource-use identification)?
Method
Result
Comment

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for ECO2: "What amounts of resources are used when delivering Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS (resource-use measurement)?"

View full card
ECO2: What amounts of resources are used when delivering Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS (resource-use measurement)?
Method
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

Result card for ECO3: "What were the measured and/or estimated costs of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS (resource-use valuation)?"

View full card
ECO3: What were the measured and/or estimated costs of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS (resource-use valuation)?
Method
Result
Comment

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Not

Measurement and estimation of outcomes

Result card for ECO4: "What is (are) the measured and/or estimated health-related outcome(s) of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS?"

View full card
ECO4: What is (are) the measured and/or estimated health-related outcome(s) of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS?
Method
Result
Comment

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Examination of costs and outcomes

Result card for ECO5: "What are the estimated differences in costs and outcomes between Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS?"

View full card
ECO5: What are the estimated differences in costs and outcomes between Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS?
Result
Comment

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Characterising uncertainty

Result card for ECO6: "What are the uncertainties surrounding the costs and economic evaluation(s) of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS?"

View full card
ECO6: What are the uncertainties surrounding the costs and economic evaluation(s) of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS?
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

Characterising heterogeneity

Result card for ECO7: "To what extent can differences in costs, outcomes, or ‘cost effectiveness’ be explained by variations between any subgroups using Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS?"

View full card
ECO7: To what extent can differences in costs, outcomes, or ‘cost effectiveness’ be explained by variations between any subgroups using Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS?
Result
Comment

Importance: Important

Transferability: Completely

Validity of the model(s)

Result card for ECO8: "To what extent can the estimates of costs, outcomes, or economic evaluation(s) be considered as providing valid descriptions of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS?"

View full card
ECO8: To what extent can the estimates of costs, outcomes, or economic evaluation(s) be considered as providing valid descriptions of Structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and its comparator, &#39;usual care&#39; without STS?
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Completely

Discussion

Because of the results presented in ECO1, ECO2, ECO3, ECO4, ECO5 and ECO6 serious doubts are raised about the extent to which the estimates of costs, health-related outcomes, and economic evaluations can be considered as providing valid descriptions of structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure compared with its comparator, 'usual care' without STS

The other issue which has an effect on the interpretation of the findings in all the result cards of this domain is the varied definition of ‘STS’ and ‘usual care’ in the literature and its relationship to the way in which ‘STS’ and ‘usual care’ are defined in the scope of this pilot assessment using the HTA Core Model 2.0.

Perhaps the most serious doubts about the cost-effectiveness information are raised by the fact that individual patient-level data was not used and no adjustment was made for potential biases arising from study quality of the studies included in the NMA in the study by Pandor et al (2013) {4} and Thokala et al (2013) {5}. Further, the study by Miller et al. (2009) {3} mainly uses information from Galbreath et al. 2004 {8}, which is classed in EFF1 as having a high risk of bias, and the potential extent of the effect on results of structural uncertainty is not described. The quality of evidence in much of the available scientific literature is poor, therefore, more studies on all aspects of costs related to STS would be needed to reach an unbiased conclusion. Further, the lack of information concerning subgroups was noted, for example, by Pandor et al. (2013) {4}. They suggested that future studies should publish data in such a way as to identify which patient subgroups benefited most from the intervention.

Although analyses of subgroups of interventions can be undertaken, there is little peer-reviewed information available to support such analysis, such as robust estimates of the cost of software acquisition and maintenance when using different STS interventions. More importantly, perhaps, robust estimates of the impact of different types of STS on subsequent healthcare costs, as well as estimates of the impacts on costs outside the healthcare sector, are not available.

References

  1. Klersy C, De Silvestri A, Gabutti G, Raisaro A, Curti M, Regoli F, et al. Economic impact of remote patient monitoring: an integrated economic model derived from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in heart failure. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2011;13(4):450-9.
  2. Hebert PL, Sisk JE, Wang JJ, Tuzzio L, Casabianca JM, Chassin MR, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Nurse-Led Disease Management for Heart Failure in an Ethnically Diverse Urban Community. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;149(8):540-8.
  3. Miller G, Randolph S, Forkner E, Smith B, Galbreath AD. Long-term cost-effectiveness of disease management in systolic heart failure. Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. 2009 May-Jun;29(3):325-33.
  4. Pandor A, Thokala P, Gomersall T, Baalbaki H, Stevens JW, Wang J, et al. Home telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes after recent discharge in patients with heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2013;17(32):1-207, v-vi.
  5. Thokala P, Baalbaki H, Brennan A, Pandor A, Stevens JW, Gomersall T, et al. Telemonitoring after discharge from hospital with heart failure: Cost-effectiveness modelling of alternative service designs. BMJ Open. 2013;3(9).
  6. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model ® version 2.0. A pdf-format file is available from http://www.corehta.info/BrowseModel.aspx; 2013.
  7. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Apr;29(2):117-22.
  8. Galbreath AD, Krasuski RA, Smith B, Stajduhar KC, Kwan MD, Ellis R, et al. Long-Term Healthcare and Cost Outcomes of Disease Management in a Large, Randomized, Community-Based Population With Heart Failure. Circulation. 2004 December 7, 2004;110(23):3518-26.
  9. Cleland JGF, Louis AA, Rigby AS, Janssens U, Balk AHMM. Noninvasive Home Telemonitoring for Patients With Heart Failure at High Risk of Recurrent Admission and Death: The Trans-European Network-Home-Care Management System (TEN-HMS) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(10):1654-64.
  10. Bergmo TS. Can economic evaluation in telemedicine be trusted? A systematic review of the literature. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation. 2009;7:18.
  11. Riegel B, Carlson B, Kopp Z, LePetri B, Glaser D, Unger A. Effect of a standardized nurse case-management telephone intervention on resource use in patients with chronic heart failure. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2002;162(6):705-12.
  12. Feltner C, Jones CD, Cené CW, Zheng ZJ, Sueta CA, Coker-Schwimmer EJL, et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2014;160(11):774-84.
  13. Krum H, Forbes A, Yallop J, Driscoll A, Croucher J, Chan B, et al. Telephone Support to Rural and Remote Patients with Heart Failure: The Chronic Heart Failure Assessment by Telephone (CHAT) study. Cardiovascular Therapeutics. 2013;31(4):230-7.
  14. Dar O, Riley J, Chapman C, Dubrey SW, Morris S, Rosen SD, et al. A randomized trial of home telemonitoring in a typical elderly heart failure population in North West London: results of the Home-HF study. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2009;11(3):319-25.
  15. Grustam AS, Severens JL, van Nijnatten J, Koymans R, Vrijhoef HJM. Cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions for chronic heart failure patients: A literature review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2014;30(01):59-68.

Appendices

 

ECO Appendix 1

 

Appendix ECO-1: ECO domain literature search strategies

 

ECO Appendix 2

Appendix ECO-2: PRISMA 2009 Flow Diagram

 

ECO Appendix 3

Appendix ECO-3: CHEERS coherence table

 

ECO Appendix 4

Appendix ECO-4: Potential cost drivers for ‘STS’ and ‘usual care’

Ethical analysis

Authors: Plamen Dimitrov, Gottfried Endel, Anelia Koteva

Summary

STS assessment in adult patients suffering from CHF has been developed in compliance with the fundamental ethical principles: beneficence/nonmaleficence, autonomy, respect for persons and justice and equity. Identified and discussed are the challenges that the use of this technology may provoke for both the patients themselves and their families, on the one hand as well as for the medical staff and healthcare system management, on the other hand.

Scientific literature demonstrates that the effect of telemedicine on patient-centered care varies more or less. Some studies see the negatives, but most find neutral or positive effects. The basis of empirical studies, however, is still too poor to allow any solid conclusions.

As will be discussed later in the text, on the agenda stand many ethical challenges, with the border between the benefits and harms associated with telemedicine remaining vague and fluid rather than sharply defined. This is due to the virtual environment, where electronically mediated communication replaces personal interaction and physical contact, thus posing several challenges:

  • When shifting the physician-patient relationship from the conventional face-to-face communication to the electronically mediated one, these relations are frequently transformed towards the introduction of new social and interpersonal dynamics. This results in redefining the roles and responsibilities of both patients and health professionals;
  • The context of indirect, distant relations between a physician and a patient raises the question of the legal regulation of possible mistakes and abuses of health personnel. There is no clarity as to who bears the legal responsibility and under what circumstances one should be liable to court. Therefore, practicing telemedicine should be accompanied by a proper legal and regulatory framework, stipulating clear standards and rules, compliant with the rights of patients, while at the same time maintaining parity between professional and ethical standards applied to all aspects of physician’s practice;
  • The digital gap expansion generated by the lack of established telecommunications infrastructure in rural and some urban areas may be another issue. Too often restrictions are associated with not only limited access to network environment but also with a deficit of knowledge, skills, experience, familiarity and a sense of comfort when handling new technologies. Telemedicine is totally dependent on digitization and could not exist isolated from it. Here of crucial importance is to distinguish between the concepts of “availability” and “accessibility” since both terms are not necessarily interchangeable in meaning. Although some resources may be available, they may as well be inaccessible for a number of reasons (as mentioned).

Introduction

The current domain outlines some ethical issues arising from the use of the particular technology, i.e.  structured telephone support for adult patients suffering from CHF. Together with all the clinical efforts in the management of this devastating condition, part of the recent research has been concentrated on finding low-cost therapeutic alternatives as telemedicine and further understanding of the psychological, ethical, legal and social aspects of handling the particular technology and its impact on the patients themselves, their families and friends, the healthcare personnel and the healthcare providers as well as the society as a whole.

Since the issues discussed are highly controversial, the ethical analysis does not give certain prescriptions but aims at providing a balance between norms and values through the consideration of social, political, cultural, legal, religious and economic aspects arising from the opposition to the generally accepted environmental values, healthcare system goals and the application of new technologies.

The following areas have been debated:

  • Improving patients’ quality of life;
  • Challenges associated with the digital gap;
  • Challenges posed by the remote interaction between a physician and a patient;
  • Fair and balanced distribution of resources;
  • Equal access to treatment;
  • Stigmatization.

Methodology

Frame

The collection scope is used in this domain.

TechnologyStructured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure
Description

Telemonitoring via structured telephone support with focus on patient reported signs (symptoms of congestion, peripheral edema, pulmonary congestion, dyspnea on exertion, abdominal fullness), medication adherence, physiological data (like heart rate, blood pressure, body weight – measured by the patient with home-device), activity level; done in regular schedules using risk stratification (with fixed algorithm by call center staff or experience-based by specialized staff); done by dedicated call centers, center-based staff, nurses, AND reduced visits to a GP or heart center

Intended use of the technologyPrevention

Remote transmission of information to alleviate symptoms, relieve suffering and allow timely treatment for chronic heart failure

Target condition
Chronic cardiac failure
Target condition description

Heart failure is a condition in which the heart has lost the ability to pump enough blood to the body's tissues. With too little blood being delivered, the organs and other tissues do not receive enough oxygen and nutrients to function properly.

Target population

Target population sex: Any. Target population age: adults and elderly. Target population group: Patients who have the target condition.

Target population description

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF; defined as I50 http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/I00-I99/I30-I52/I50-/I50 ) AND hospitalization due to heart failure at least once  AND without implanted devices

ComparisonUsual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist or patient has to move (≠ at home)
Description

Usual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist; patient has to move (≠ at home)

Outcomes

Mortality (disease specific and all cause) progressions, admissions, re-admissions, QoL or HRQoL, harms

Assessment elements

TopicIssue RelevantResearch questions or rationale for irrelevance
F0010Beneficence/nonmaleficenceWhat are the known and estimated benefits and harms for patients when implementing or not implementing the technology?yesWhat are the known and estimated benefits and harms for patients when implementing or not implementing STS?
F0011Beneficence/nonmaleficenceWhat are the benefits and harms of the technology for other stakeholders (relatives, other patients, organisations, commercial entities, society, etc.)?yesWhat are the benefits and harms of STS for other stakeholders (relatives, other patients, organisations, commercial entities, society, etc.)?
F0100Beneficence/nonmaleficenceWhat is the severity level of the condition that the technology is directed to?noThis question is the subject of discussion in the "CUR"-domain and it is extraneous to clarify the ethical considerations of technology and therefore does not belong in this domain.
F0003Beneficence/nonmaleficenceAre there any other hidden or unintended consequences of the technology and its applications for different stakeholders (patients/users, relatives, other patients, organisations, commercial entities, society etc.)?noThe answer to this question overlaps with regard to the answers to the previous two questions
F0005AutonomyIs the technology used for patients/people that are especially vulnerable?yesIs STS used for patients/people that are especially vulnerable?
F0004AutonomyDoes the implementation or use of the technology affect the patient´s capability and possibility to exercise autonomy?yesDoes the implementation or use of STS affect the patient´s capability and possibility to exercise autonomy?
F0006AutonomyIs there a need for any specific interventions or supportive actions concerning information in order to respect patient autonomy when the technology is used?yesIs there a need for any specific STSs or supportive actions concerning information in order to respect patient autonomy when STS is used?
F0007AutonomyDoes the implementation or withdrawal of the technology challenge or change professional values, ethics or traditional roles?yesDoes the implementation or withdrawal of STS challenge or change professional values, ethics or traditional roles?
F0009Respect for personsDoes the implementation or use of the technology affect the user´s moral, religious or cultural integrity?yesDoes the implementation or use of STS affect the user´s moral, religious or cultural integrity?
F0101Respect for personsDoes the technology invade the sphere of privacy of the patient/user?yesDoes STS invade the sphere of privacy of the patient/user?
F0008Respect for personsDoes the implementation or use of the technology affect human dignity?noHuman dignity is legal category and not ethical. It is defined as "fundamental and inalienable human right" and therefore subject to the law, not ethics
F0012Justice and EquityHow does implementation or withdrawal of the technology affect the distribution of health care resources?yesHow does implementation or withdrawal of STS affect the distribution of health care resources?
F0013Justice and EquityHow are technologies with similar ethical issues treated in the health care system?yesHow are technologies with similar ethical issues treated in the health care system?
H0012Justice and EquityAre there factors that could prevent a group or persons to participate?yesAre there socio cultural factors that could prevent a group CHF patients (defined by e.g. age, ethnicity, income, geographic area, working staus, geneder etc.) to use Structured telephone support (STS)?
F0014LegislationDoes the implementation or use of the technology affect the realisation of basic human rights?yesDoes the implementation or use of STS affect the realisation of basic human rights?
F0016LegislationCan the use of the technology pose ethical challenges that have not been considered in the existing legislations and regulations?no
F0017Ethical consequences of the HTAWhat are the ethical consequences of the choice of end-points, cut-off values and comparators/controls in the assessment?yesWhat are the ethical consequences of the choice of end-points, cut-off values and comparators/controls in the assessment?
F0102Ethical consequences of the HTADoes the economic evaluation of the technology contain any ethical problems?yesDoes the economic evaluation of STS contain any ethical problems?
F0103Ethical consequences of the HTAWhat are the ethical consequences of the assessment of the technology?yesWhat are the ethical consequences of the assessment of STS?

Methodology description

The Ethical Domain has been developed in compliance with the fundamental ethical principles, basically following the method of principalism. Consistently presented are ethical arguments related to the autonomy and benefits for the patient as well as possible limitations pertaining to the implementation of the technology discussed, without aiming to give a precise answer or “ethical prescription”, as already said.

The domain comprises 19 issues grouped into 5 sections, as listed below:

  • Section 1 – Beneficence/Nonmaleficence;
  • Section 2 – Autonomy;
  • Section 3 – Respect for Persons;
  • Section 4 – Justice and Equity;
  • Section 5 – Legislation.

We have answered 15 issues. The other 4 issues we consider either irrelevant or have marked them as a “skipped issue”. More specifically unanswered are:

  • Issue 3 (marked as irrelevant);
  • Issue 4 (marked as irrelevant);
  • Issue 11 (marked as irrelevant);
  • Issue 16 (marked as skipped).

Literature

The text is based on 24 literary sources, as shown in the references. All of them are in the English language, no Cyrillic information sources have been used.

The literature has been obtained by searching the Internet engine Google, Google scholar and PubMed by key words for each aspect concerned. No other scientific databases have been used.

Nevertheless, we believe that the literature provides a great variety of views that have been reflected in the current analysis. Since the issues are of highly controversial nature, the current text does not pretend to be a detailed or comprehensive analysis but provides some thoughts and reflections. Official  sources such as reports of the WHO, statements, guidelines of the American Telemedicine Association, research papers as well as various peer-reviewed articles in specialized medical journals, primarily focusing on cardiology, ethics, medical informatics, telemedicine and telecare, etc., have been thoroughly reviewed and helped in the understanding of the topic. All citations have been marked by pointing the authors of the source, its title, place and date of publication as well as by a link to the information source itself, basically in a pdf-format. All of the sources, on which the analysis is based, are as of recent years.

Result cards

Beneficence/nonmaleficence

Result card for ETH1: "What are the known and estimated benefits and harms for patients when implementing or not implementing STS?"

View full card
ETH1: What are the known and estimated benefits and harms for patients when implementing or not implementing STS?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Result card for ETH2: "What are the benefits and harms of STS for other stakeholders (relatives, other patients, organisations, commercial entities, society, etc.)?"

View full card
ETH2: What are the benefits and harms of STS for other stakeholders (relatives, other patients, organisations, commercial entities, society, etc.)?
Result
Comment

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Autonomy

Result card for ETH3: "Is STS used for patients/people that are especially vulnerable?"

View full card
ETH3: Is STS used for patients/people that are especially vulnerable?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Result card for ETH4: "Does the implementation or use of STS affect the patient&#180;s capability and possibility to exercise autonomy?"

View full card
ETH4: Does the implementation or use of STS affect the patient&#180;s capability and possibility to exercise autonomy?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Result card for ETH5: "Is there a need for any specific STSs or supportive actions concerning information in order to respect patient autonomy when STS is used?"

View full card
ETH5: Is there a need for any specific STSs or supportive actions concerning information in order to respect patient autonomy when STS is used?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Result card for ETH6: "Does the implementation or withdrawal of STS challenge or change professional values, ethics or traditional roles?"

View full card
ETH6: Does the implementation or withdrawal of STS challenge or change professional values, ethics or traditional roles?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Respect for persons

Result card for ETH7: "Does the implementation or use of STS affect the user&#180;s moral, religious or cultural integrity?"

View full card
ETH7: Does the implementation or use of STS affect the user&#180;s moral, religious or cultural integrity?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Result card for ETH8: "Does STS invade the sphere of privacy of the patient/user?"

View full card
ETH8: Does STS invade the sphere of privacy of the patient/user?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Justice and Equity

Result card for ETH9: "How does implementation or withdrawal of STS affect the distribution of health care resources?"

View full card
ETH9: How does implementation or withdrawal of STS affect the distribution of health care resources?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Result card for ETH10: "How are technologies with similar ethical issues treated in the health care system?"

View full card
ETH10: How are technologies with similar ethical issues treated in the health care system?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Result card for ETH11 / SOC3: "Are there socio cultural factors that could prevent a group CHF patients (defined by e.g. age, ethnicity, income, geographic area, working staus, geneder etc.) to use Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
ETH11 / SOC3: Are there socio cultural factors that could prevent a group CHF patients (defined by e.g. age, ethnicity, income, geographic area, working staus, geneder etc.) to use Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Legislation

Result card for ETH12: "Does the implementation or use of STS affect the realisation of basic human rights?"

View full card
ETH12: Does the implementation or use of STS affect the realisation of basic human rights?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Ethical consequences of the HTA

Result card for ETH13: "What are the ethical consequences of the choice of end-points, cut-off values and comparators/controls in the assessment?"

View full card
ETH13: What are the ethical consequences of the choice of end-points, cut-off values and comparators/controls in the assessment?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Result card for ETH14: "Does the economic evaluation of STS contain any ethical problems?"

View full card
ETH14: Does the economic evaluation of STS contain any ethical problems?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Result card for ETH15: "What are the ethical consequences of the assessment of STS?"

View full card
ETH15: What are the ethical consequences of the assessment of STS?
Result

Importance: Unspecified

Transferability: Unspecified

Discussion

In recent years, health vocabulary has been enriched with several new concepts resulting from the penetration of information and communication technologies in public life, particularly in the health field, and the subsequent transformation of the organization of healthcare provision. Neologisms, such as “telemedicine”, “telehealth” and “e-health”, have appeared, whose semantic distinction as of today is not clear enough insofar as they are often considered synonyms. The complexity in determining their terminological scope is largely reinforced by the lack of a universal definition for the three concepts.

On the Etymology of Concepts. Operational Definitions

“Tele-“ (derived from Greek, meaning “far away”, “from a distance”). As already mentioned, there is a great variety of definitions in the available literature, but as they are not a particular focus of the present analysis and serve only to make terminological clarity, the paper will only consider two of them. For example, the American Telemedicine Association provides the following definition: “Telemedicine is the remote delivery of healthcare services and clinical information using telecommunications technology. This includes a wide array of clinical services using Internet, wireless, satellite and telephone media”[1], while the World Health Organization expands the scope of telemedicine as follows: “The delivery of healthcare services, where distance is a critical factor, by all healthcare professionals using information and communication technologies for the exchange of valid information for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease and injuries, research and evaluation, and for the continuing education of healthcare providers, all in the interests of advancing the health of individuals and their communities”[2].

From what has been pointed out one can make the impression that the second definition extends the focus from the purely clinical aspects, typical of telemedicine, to the various non-clinical applications, including prevention, public health, research, health education, etc. With the involvement of an ever growing group of health professionals (not restricted to physicians only) and the emergence of increasingly sophisticated ICT, telemedicine acquires new dimensions approaching it to what is meant by the term “telehealth” (referred to as in the WHO definition above).

Despite the lack of a single, universal understanding of telemedicine/telehealth, experts in the field unite themselves around some common components for all definitions:

  1. ICT use;
  2. Geographical distance among participants;
  3. Use in the context of health/medicine.

One of the problems that could affect the quality and nature of the conclusions in the material stems from the fact that, like many other innovations in the healthcare field, almost all of the studies from the available literature, assessing the positive and negative impact of telemedicine, focus primarily on the purely economic, technical and clinical parameters, particularly emphasizing on cost reduction and technological efficiency but ignoring the ethical considerations at the same time. The latter, however, is an essential element of any general assessment of a new technology, without whose thorough clarification and its understanding remains impossible further incorporation into future guidelines, standards of care and policies.

While collecting and reviewing specialized literature, another major gap has been found – lack of sufficient empirical studies dealing specifically with the advantages and disadvantages of implementing teletechnologies in clinical practice, with emphasis on just general theoretical philosophical and ethical concepts instead. Therefore, since the exact benefits and harms of telemedicine remain unknown at this stage, they require additional empirical confirmation or denial so that decision-makers could reach a grounded, reasoned decision on the selection of a concrete health technology and its further implementation into routine medical practice.

The available literature is concentrated in two key papers representing meta-analyses of data from randomized controlled trials comparing the two forms of remote monitoring – telemonitoring and structured telephone support in terms of clinical or cost effectiveness indicators[3],[4]. Quite vaguely mentioned has been their acceptability to patients and patients’ level of satisfaction. Also a bias in patient selection has been identified – only persons with skills and affinity to modern communication have been included.

Like the majority of the available empirical material on teletechnologies, ethical aspects have been neglected. A significant disadvantage of the meta-analyses used is their failure to strictly define the scope of the term “structured telephone support”. Despite the operational definition provided, it cannot be codified and equally applicable to all types of structured telephone support; rather, each of the authors of the studies, included in the meta-analyses, gives his/her own understanding of what is meant by the term and its boundaries. The adjective “structured” implies regularity of telephone contacts with their initiation on the part of healthcare personnel, but the limits of the scope are higly blurred, at times closely approaching each other and even further confusing them by mixing structured telephone support with telemonitoring through the transfer of electronically registered and traceable physiological indicators – all of these made possible by the use of mobile applications. This poses the question of to what extent structured telephone support should be confined to traditional landlines and won’t it be more correct with a view to the overwhelming digital environment for the analyses to be based on data including mobile telephones, as well.

 

[1]Telemedicine Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)”, available at: http://www.americantelemed.org/about-telemedicine/faqs#.VR0dHPyUc4i .

 

[2]Telemedicine: Opportunities and Developments in Member States” (Report on the Second Global Survey on eHealth), Global Observatory for e-Health Series – volume 2, World Health Organization, 2010, p. 9, available at: http://www.who.int/goe/publications/goe_telemedicine_2010.pdf .

[3] Inglis, S., R. Clark, F. McAlister, J. Ball, C. Lewinter, D. Cullington, S. Stewart, J. Cleland, “Structured Telephone Support or Telemonitoring Programmes for Patients with Chronic Heart Failure (Review)”, the Cochrane Collaboration, published in the Cochrane Library, 2010, issue 8, available at: http://www.iat.eu/ehealth/downloads/441_Cochrane.pdf .

 

[4] Pandor, A., P. Thokalla, T. Gomersall, H. Baalbaki, J. Stevens, J. Wang, R. Wong, A. Brennan, P. Fitzgerald, “Home Telemonitoring or Structured Telephone Support Programmes after Recent Discharge in Patients with Heart Failure: Systematic Review and Economic Evaluation”, National Institute for Health Research, United Kingdom, Health Technology Assessment, volume 17, issue 32, August 2013, available at: http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/76588/FullReport-hta17320.pdf .

References

  1. Bauer, K., “The Ethical Implications of Telemedicine and the Internet for Home Healthcare(Doctoral Dissertation), University of Tennessee, Knoxville, May 2002, available at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3531&context=utk_graddiss ;
  2. Clinical Telehealth in Quėbec: An Ethical Perspective. Summary and Recommendations”, Position statement adopted at the 67th meeting of the Commission de l’éthique en science et en technologie, 28 March 2014, Gouvernement du Québec, Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Library and Archives Canada, available at: http://www.ethique.gouv.qc.ca/en/assets/documents/Telesante/Telehealth_summary_EN.PDF ;
  3. Core Operational Guidelines for Telehealth Services Involving Provider-Patient Interactions”, American Telemedicine Association, May 2014, available at: http://www.americantelemed.org/docs/default-source/standards/core-operational-guidelines-for-telehealth-services.pdf?sfvrsn=6 ;
  4. Examples of Research Outcomes: Telemedicine’s Impact on Healthcare Cost and Quality”, American Telemedicine’s Association, April 2013, available at: http://www.americantelemed.org/docs/default-source/policy/examples-of-research-outcomes---telemedicine's-impact-on-healthcare-cost-and-quality.pdf ;
  5. Fleming, D., “Telehealth: The Ethical Challenges of a New Technology”, Center for Health Ethics, Department of Health Management and Informatics, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, available at: http://ethics.missouri.edu/docs/telehealth_challenges.pdf ;
  6. Hale, T., J. Kvedar, “Privacy and Security Concerns in Telehealth”, AMA Journal of Ethics (formerly “Virtual Mentor”), December 2014, vol. 16, number 12: 981-985, available at: http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2014/12/jdsc1-1412.html ;
  7. Harman, L., C. Flite, K. Bond, “Electronic Health Records: Privacy, Confidentiality, and Security”, AMA Journal of Ethics (formerly “Virtual Mentor”), September 2012, vol. 14, number 9: 712-719, available at: http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2012/09/stas1-1209.html ;
  8. Inglis, S., R. Clark, F. McAlister, J. Ball, C. Lewinter, D Cullington, S. Stewart, J. Cleland, “Structured Telephone Support or Telemonitoring Programmes for Patients with Chronic Heart Failure (Review)”, the Cochrane Collaboration, published in the Cochrane Library, 2010, issue 8, available at: http://www.iat.eu/ehealth/downloads/441_Cochrane.pdf ;
  9. Jack, C., M. Mars, “Telemedicine: A Need for Ethical and Legal Guidelines in South Africa”, South African Family Practice, August, 2014 50:2, 60-60d, DOI: 10.1080/20786204.2008.10873698, available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20786204.2008.10873698 ;
  10. Marziali, E., J. Serafini, L. McCleary, “A Systematic Review of Practice Standards and Research Ethics in Technology-based Home Health Care Intervention Programs for Older Adults”, Journal of Aging and Health, December 2005, 17(6):679-96, available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16377767 ;
  11. Mehta, Sh., “Telemedicine’s Potential Ethical Pitfalls”, AMA Journal of Ethics (formerly “Virtual Mentor”), December 2014, vol. 16, number 12: 1014-1017, available at:  http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2014/12/msoc1-1412.html ;
  12. Miller, St., Al. MacGregor, “Ethical Dimensions of Meaningful Use Requirements for Electronic Health Records”, AMA Journal of Ethics (formerly “Virtual Mentor”), March 2011, vol. 13, number 3: 176-180, available at: http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2011/03/pfor1-1103.html ;
  13. Pandor, A., P. Thokala, T. Gomersall, H. Baalbaki, J. Stevens, J. Wang, R. Wong, A. Brennan, P. Fitzgerald, “Home Telemonitoring or Structured Telephone Support Programmes after Recent Discharge in Patients with Heart Failure: Systematic Review and Economic Evaluation”, National Institute for Health Research, United Kingdom, Health Technology Assessment, volume 17, issue 32, August 2013, available at: http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/76588/FullReport-hta17320.pdf ;
  14. Paré, G., M. Jaana, Cl. Sicotte, “Systematic Review of Home Telemonitoring for Chronic Diseases: The Evidence Base”, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, May-June 2007, 14 (3): 269-277, doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2270, available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2244878/ ;
  15. Perry, J., St. Beyer, J. Francis, P. Holmes, “Ethical Issues in the Use of Telecare”, Adults’ Services Report 30, Social Care Institute for Excellence, May 2010, Great Britain, available at: http://lx.iriss.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/report30.pdf ;
  16. Sarhan, F., “Telemedicine in Healthcare 2: The Legal and Ethical Aspects of Using New Technology”,  Nursing Times; 105: 43, 2 November 2009, available at: http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/specialisms/management/telemedicine-in-healthcare-2-the-legal-and-ethical-aspects-of-using-new-technology/5008068.article ;
  17. Schmidt, S., Andr. Schuchert, Th. Krieg, M. Oeff, “Home Telemonitoring in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: A Chance to Improve Patient Care?”, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, February 2010, 2010; 107(8): 131-138; DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0131, available at:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2840250/ and http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article/67896/Home-Telemonitoring-in-Patients-With-Chronic-Heart-Failure-A-Chance-to-Improve-Patient-Care ;
  18.  Stanberry, B., “Legal and Ethical Aspects of Telemedicine”, Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 2006, 12(4):166-75, available at: http://jtt.sagepub.com/content/12/4/166.short ;
  19. Stroetmann, K., L. Kubitschke, S. Robinson, V. Stroetmann, K. Cullen, D. McDaid, “How Can Telehealth Help in the Provision of Integrated Care?”, Policy Brief 13, World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe and European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2010, available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/120998/E94265.pdf ;
  20.  “Telehealth” (Wikipedia), available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telehealth ;
  21.  “Telemedicine” (Wikipedia), available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemedicine ;
  22. Telemedicine Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)”, American Telemedicine Association, available at: http://www.americantelemed.org/about-telemedicine/faqs#.VRxUKfysX84 \ ;
  23. Telemedicine: Opportunities and Developments in Member States” (Report on the Second Global Survey on eHealth), Global Observatory for eHealth Series – volume 2, World Health Organization, 2010, available at: http://www.who.int/goe/publications/goe_telemedicine_2010.pdf ;
  24. What Is Telemedicine?”, American Telemedicine Association, available at: http://www.americantelemed.org/about-telemedicine/what-is-telemedicine#.VRxTr_ysX84 .

Organisational aspects

Authors: Valentina Prevolnik Rupel, Taja Čokl, Eleftheria Karampli

Summary

ORG1: How does Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases affect the current work processes?

As most of the studies are conducted in controlled academic environment or non realistic setting, it might be that additional option should be considered in real setting, like hiring a nurse, use of low cost telephone service, use more time for outcomes dissemination and results discussion in a team. STS can be carried out in very different settings, from primary care to tertiary care. There is little information in the studies on the changes of the workflow – usually for the STS an additional nurse was used who had access to patient data, carried out the STS, monitored the patient, recorded the symptoms and data and reinforced and adapted the plan of care for the patient. The other medical professions did not get involved in STS directly, only indirectly, through the STS nurse, who coordinated all the activities and services around the patient. No study specifically recorded the (decrease or increase of) workload for other specialists in case a STS nurse was involved in the work. One study {6} describes how to manage human resources and the division of roles between nurses. During the 2007 calendar year, there were 1.356 patients visits to the HF clinic and telephone calls accounted for an additional 1.914 patient encounters in 2007. One full-time nurse practitioner, one clinical nurse specialist (working 0,7 of a full-time equivalent), and one registered nurse (vacation replacement) provided the nursing interventions with the telephone visits. Nurse spent 24 % of their working hours doing 1.914 telephone calls in one year.

ORG 2: What kind of patient/participant flow is associated with Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases?

 

STS replaced historical program of doctor’s visits for HF patients after discharge. In interventions utilizing STS, the patient is monitored remotely while being at home (including a relative’s home, nursing home or residential care home). The patients are contacted in regular time intervals via telephone by either healthcare personnel (e.g. specialized HF nurses) or an automated telephone-based interactive response system. The STS support starts being planned while the patient is in hospital through education and meeting with the HF nurse. Education and practising with the technology follows and the materials are given to the patients as well as explained to the relatives. At the point of discharge the timing of the first call is agreed. The frequency of calls varies greatly among the studies but in common the calls are weekly at least first two weeks after discharge and then get biweekly until two months after discharge. After that they become monthly. It is not clear how long the intervention should last: there are different periods, going from 3 months up to 2 years after the discharge. It is not clear when the effect is biggest, possibly within first 3 months.

ORG3: What kind of involvement has to be mobilized for patients/participants and important others?

Please find the overlapping results also in TEC3: What kind of training and information should be provided for the patient who uses Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases, or for his family?

ORG4: What is the process ensuring proper education and training of the staff?

Proper education and training of the staff is ensured through the courses for nurses on HF (formal HF certification) and on the remote monitoring, which is assured by telemedicine providers in case any devices for home symptoms measurements are included. As far as the STS itself, no specific training were found to be offered to staff in the literature.

ORG5: What kind of co-operation and communication of activities have to be mobilised?

In the heart of communication and cooperation strategy in the studies there is always a nurse. A consistent nurse case manager who cares for the patient and connects family, tries to understand goals and specific outcomes, provides information and monitors patient and communicates and cooperates with other members of health team to help them understand the patient {240}. A published communication strategy is important, including patient support strategy, communication between patient: nurse, patient: medical doctor, patient: pharmacist, the brochures, diaries to record daily control measurements, web pages with disease information and with instructions, instructions for family members  to share a best practise.

ORG6: How is the quality assurance and monitoring system of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases organised?

Please find the overlapping results in TEC2: What kind of qualification and quality assurance processes are needed for the use or maintenance of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases?

ORG7: What are the processes ensuring access to care of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases for patients/participants?

In general, RM including STS provides greater access to care in geographical terms. In most of the studies the problems with accessability to phone line were not reported. Careful planning of STS is necessary among specific population that might have issues in moving around and having lower access to phone lines. Also, the number of telephone contacts per week should not be too high, not even in the first week as this may affect adherence. The problems might arise on the side of physicians as patients might relocate to more developed health care centres with remote monitoring programs posing financial risk for smaller providers.

Speaking in terms of financial accessability, no specific problems were mentioned on the side of the patient. On the side of the provider, the current reimbursement structures basically do not support STS and hence act as a disincentive to providers wanting to offer RM incl. STS to patients sustaining HF. Innovative reimbursement schemes such as coverage with evidence in development are suggested in the literature.

ORG8: What are the likely budget impacts of implementing the technologies being compared?

While some studies reported  {2} no statistically significant difference in healthcare costs (either total costs or all-cause hospital costs), other studies reported important and significant reductions in costs. While the average costs of intervention across the studies amounted from $23,6 to $443, the reported savings amounted from $30,9 to $536 per patient per month. The savings across studies were reported in various ways which makes them hardly comparable (percentage reduction in inpatient costs, percentage reduction in overall costs, percentage reduction in total health expenditures, reduction in different currencies per patient, per nurse, per year, per month, per 6 months...). However, more important than this is the method of costs calculation that varies widely across the studies. More or less, only direct costs are included, mostly connected to reduction in hospitalizations. More than 70 % of the studies did not take into account expenses in one of the following categories:  healthcare sector, other sectors, patient/family expenses or productivity losses. None of the studies analyzed a shift of cost, from specialits to HF nurse to GP, for instance. In 80% of the studies the source and methods of the evaluations were not clear. Authors mostly focused on direct costs while omitting indirect and intangible costs {310}. Principally, the costs were missing across majority of the studies and those of the intervention overheads, training of personnel, and patient related costs.  There is a difficulty in capturing all of the effects of telehealth intervention. Thus the cost effectiveness evidence for specific implementations in the field of telehealth is limited. Problems with telehealth interventions reside in absence of quality data and appropriate measures. The quality of economic data is especially questionnable. The quality of evidence in the scientific literature is poor. More studies on all costs are needed to reach the unbiased conclusion. 

ORG9: What management problems and opportunities are attached to Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases?

The use of RM has improved as a possible way to improve the management of patients with HF by allowing more frequent assessment of patients without the need for FTF clinical reviews {100}. When planning the introduction of a RM intervention in general, there are several questions that need to be addressed concerning: the choice of patients targeted by these programmes; the parameters that will be monitored; the more efficient way to monitor them; the training of patients and healthcare personnel; how to organize the response of the health care professionals to data obtained from monitoring to optimize patient care {1430}{1}. Possibly management will need to deal with (de)employment of new resources, new information systems, new equipment for STS provisions, new administrative leadership and new group culture that promotes quality improvement {15}{40}.

CUR3 / ORG10: Who decides which people are eligible for Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases and on what basis?

Eligibility to new technology depends on an assessment of the general practitioner of a patient’s condition and the patient's willingness and ability to participate. Access to new technologies depends on support of healthcare providers. In real-world settings, patient selection will be critical for the acceptance and compliance with the programme. Patient selection criteria might include the degree to which the patient is willing to incorporate these technologies into their care or patients at high-risk {40}. Having  an access to a touchtone telephone is an essential inclusion criterion {1} . By Dunagan et al {10} cognitive or psychologic impairment as well as inability to hear and understand English spoken over the telephone were included as non-eligibility criteria.

ORG11: How is Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases accepted?

Adherence to STS programs differs in HM to HH STS programs, it seems that interpersonal interaction with a care provider is an important active component of STS (adherence is higher in HH than HM STS) {40}. Adherence is reported from 55,1% to 84% across the studies, adaptation to the technology to 90% or higher, more than 90% of patietns are statisfied with the use of technolgy. Acceptance of automated voice interactive system was poor, mostly due to technical failures. Patients were generally very satisfied with various STS programs across studies.

 

The clinicians, on the other hand, have several reservations, such as potential increased clinical workload, medicolegal issues, and worries of difficulty of use for some patients due to lack of visual acuity or manual dexterity. The clinicians believed that the telephone interactions is as effective as face-to-face interactions. The clinicians fear that system would result in a significant increase in their workload {91}.

ORG12: How are the other interest groups taken into account in the planning / implementation of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases?

No other interest groups except those mentioned in other assessment elements, are taken into account in the planning / implementation of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases.

Introduction

In this domain we aim to explain the impact of STS on providers (their work processes, education and training of staff, management strategies, acceptance), on patients (patient flow, patient involvement, access to STS, eligibility and acceptance) as well as on health care system (budget impact, quality assurance and monitoring). From oragnizational aspect the most important issue is ensuring optimal organization on the side of provider by assigning a trained heart failure (HF) nurse to carry our STS program through proper communication that assures maximum acceptance, adherence and satisfaction by patients. According to the opinion of medical staff, lack of proper reimbursement in most health care systems makes the management of STS programs challenging. It needs to take into account evidence based findings on best result technology, social and organizational issues to achieve maximum results.

Methodology

Frame

The collection scope is used in this domain.

TechnologyStructured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure
Description

Telemonitoring via structured telephone support with focus on patient reported signs (symptoms of congestion, peripheral edema, pulmonary congestion, dyspnea on exertion, abdominal fullness), medication adherence, physiological data (like heart rate, blood pressure, body weight – measured by the patient with home-device), activity level; done in regular schedules using risk stratification (with fixed algorithm by call center staff or experience-based by specialized staff); done by dedicated call centers, center-based staff, nurses, AND reduced visits to a GP or heart center

Intended use of the technologyPrevention

Remote transmission of information to alleviate symptoms, relieve suffering and allow timely treatment for chronic heart failure

Target condition
Chronic cardiac failure
Target condition description

Heart failure is a condition in which the heart has lost the ability to pump enough blood to the body's tissues. With too little blood being delivered, the organs and other tissues do not receive enough oxygen and nutrients to function properly.

Target population

Target population sex: Any. Target population age: adults and elderly. Target population group: Patients who have the target condition.

Target population description

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF; defined as I50 http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/I00-I99/I30-I52/I50-/I50 ) AND hospitalization due to heart failure at least once  AND without implanted devices

ComparisonUsual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist or patient has to move (≠ at home)
Description

Usual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist; patient has to move (≠ at home)

Outcomes

Mortality (disease specific and all cause) progressions, admissions, re-admissions, QoL or HRQoL, harms

Assessment elements

TopicIssue RelevantResearch questions or rationale for irrelevance
G0001Health delivery processHow does the technology affect the current work processes?yesHow does structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure affect the current work processes?
G0100Health delivery processWhat kind of patient/participant flow is associated with the new technology?yesWhat kind of patient/participant flow is associated with structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
G0002Health delivery processWhat kind of involvement has to be mobilized for patients/participants and important others?yesWhat kind of involvement has to be mobilized for patients/participants and important others?
G0003Health delivery processWhat is the process ensuring proper education and training of the staff?yesWhat is the process ensuring proper education and training of the staff?
G0004Health delivery processWhat kind of co-operation and communication of activities have to be mobilised?yesWhat kind of co-operation and communication of activities have to be mobilised?
G0012Health delivery processHow is the quality assurance and monitoring system of the new technology organised?yesHow is the quality assurance and monitoring system of structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure organised?
G0101Structure of health care systemWhat are the processes ensuring access to care of the new technology for patients/participants?yesWhat are the processes ensuring access to care of structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure for patients/participants?
G0005Structure of health care systemHow does de-centralisation or centralization requirements influence the implementation of the technology?noAs telemonitoring is provided at patients' home and is monitored by the unit defined in the system, the level of de/centralization has no impact on the implementation.
G0007Process-related costsWhat are the likely budget impacts of implementing the technologies being compared?yesWhat are the likely budget impacts of implementing the technologies being compared?
G0006Process-related costsWhat are the processes related to purchasing and setting up the new technology?noInvestments in premises and equipment (except phone lines/broadbands) are not necessary and not mentioned in the literature, which clearly follows from TEC domain. This is the reason we find this question irrelevant.
G0008ManagementWhat management problems and opportunities are attached to the technology?yesWhat management problems and opportunities are attached to structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
G0009ManagementWho decides which people are eligible for the technology and on what basis?yesWho decides which people are eligible for structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and on what basis?
G0010CultureHow is the technology accepted?yesHow is structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure accepted?
G0011CultureHow are the other interest groups taken into account in the planning / implementation of the technology?yesHow are the other interest groups taken into account in the planning / implementation of structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?

Methodology description

To answer the questions in the assessment elements we mainly used the basic literature search provided for the whole project. Additionally, two more systematic searches were used: one performed by ORG and ECO domains (described in methodology of ECO domain) and one perfomed by EFF, SAF and ECO domains (described in SAF domain). For some answers (ORG4) an additional handsearch was performed.  

Information sources

·         Common basic project literature search

·         Specific literature search performed together with ECO domain

·         Specific literature search performed in SAF, EFF and ECO domain

·         Handsearch (additional reference found/ provided)

·         Google

Quality assessment tools or criteria

We did not rate the quality of the included studies, but mentioned whether the information was extracted from systematic reviews or single studies (i.e. RCTs) or other resources. The basis for inclusion and exclusion of the studies is described in other domains with whom the search was perfomed and was based on the contents of the abstract (we checked the relevance of topic for our AEs and PICO). Quality assessment of the literature was not performed in ORG domain - however, no separate search was performed within the domain as well. We found the opposing results based on the same articles cited in 2 articles – in such cases the original articles was searched for and the results were checked.

Analysis and synthesis

Three investigators divided the amount of studies among themselves, each scanned one third of the studies and double-checked the other two thirds. The investigators in the further process divided the questions (each investigator 4 questions) and we wrote and wrapped them up based on the findings from the literature. The whole document was checked before sent to internal reviewers. The comments from internal reviewers were divided among investigators according to the separate questions and reacted to accordingly. The whole process was coordinated with ECO, TEC and LEG domain through PI s of each domain. The classification of literature was prepared in other domains and not in Org and is therefore not presented here. 

Result cards

Health delivery process

Result card for ORG1: "How does structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure affect the current work processes?"

View full card
ORG1: How does structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure affect the current work processes?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for ORG2: "What kind of patient/participant flow is associated with structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?"

View full card
ORG2: What kind of patient/participant flow is associated with structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for ORG3: "What kind of involvement has to be mobilized for patients/participants and important others?"

View full card
ORG3: What kind of involvement has to be mobilized for patients/participants and important others?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for ORG4: "What is the process ensuring proper education and training of the staff?"

View full card
ORG4: What is the process ensuring proper education and training of the staff?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for ORG5: "What kind of co-operation and communication of activities have to be mobilised?"

View full card
ORG5: What kind of co-operation and communication of activities have to be mobilised?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for ORG6: "How is the quality assurance and monitoring system of structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure organised?"

View full card
ORG6: How is the quality assurance and monitoring system of structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure organised?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

Structure of health care system

Result card for ORG7: "What are the processes ensuring access to care of structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure for patients/participants?"

View full card
ORG7: What are the processes ensuring access to care of structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure for patients/participants?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Process-related costs

Result card for ORG8: "What are the likely budget impacts of implementing the technologies being compared?"

View full card
ORG8: What are the likely budget impacts of implementing the technologies being compared?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

Management

Result card for ORG9: "What management problems and opportunities are attached to structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?"

View full card
ORG9: What management problems and opportunities are attached to structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for CUR3 / ORG10: "Who decides which people are eligible for structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and on what basis?"

View full card
CUR3 / ORG10: Who decides which people are eligible for structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure and on what basis?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Culture

Result card for ORG11: "How is structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure accepted?"

View full card
ORG11: How is structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure accepted?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Completely

Result card for ORG12: "How are the other interest groups taken into account in the planning / implementation of structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?"

View full card
ORG12: How are the other interest groups taken into account in the planning / implementation of structured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Optional

Transferability: Completely

Discussion

ORG1: How does Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases affect the current work processes?

As most of the studies are conducted in controlled academic environment or non realistic setting, it might be that additional option should be considered in real setting, like hiring a nurse, use of low cost telephone service, use more time for outcomes dissemination and results discussion in a team. STS can be carried out in very different settings, from primary care to tertiary care. There is little information in the studies on the changes of the workflow – usually for the STS an additional nurse was used who had access to patient data, carried out the STS, monitored the patient, recorded the symptoms and data and reinforced and adapted the plan of care for the patient. The other medical professions did not get involved in STS directly, only indirectly, through the STS nurse, who coordinated all the activities and services around the patient. No study specifically recorded the (decrease or increase of) workload for other specialists in case a STS nurse was involved in the work. One study {6} describes how to manage human resources and the division of roles between nurses. During the 2007 calendar year, there were 1.356 patients visits to the HF clinic and telephone calls accounted for an additional 1.914 patient encounters in 2007. One full-time nurse practitioner, one clinical nurse specialist (working 0,7 of a full-time equivalent), and one registered nurse (vacation replacement) provided the nursing interventions with the telephone visits. Nurse spent 24 % of their working hours doing 1.914 telephone calls in one year.

ORG 2: What kind of patient/participant flow is associated with Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases?

 

STS replaced historical program of doctor’s visits for HF patients after discharge. In interventions utilizing STS, the patient is monitored remotely while being at home (including a relative’s home, nursing home or residential care home). The patients are contacted in regular time intervals via telephone by either healthcare personnel (e.g. specialized HF nurses) or an automated telephone-based interactive response system. The STS support starts being planned while the patient is in hospital through education and meeting with the HF nurse. Education and practising with the technology follows and the materials are given to the patients as well as explained to the relatives. At the point of discharge the timing of the first call is agreed. The frequency of calls varies greatly among the studies but in common the calls are weekly at least first two weeks after discharge and then get biweekly until two months after discharge. After that they become monthly. It is not clear how long the intervention should last: there are different periods, going from 3 months up to 2 years after the discharge. It is not clear when the effect is biggest, possibly within first 3 months.

ORG3: What kind of involvement has to be mobilized for patients/participants and important others?

Please find the overlapping results also in TEC3: What kind of training and information should be provided for the patient who uses Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases, or for his family?

ORG4: What is the process ensuring proper education and training of the staff?

Proper education and training of the staff is ensured through the courses for nurses on HF (formal HF certification) and on the remote monitoring, which is assured by telemedicine providers in case any devices for home symptoms measurements are included. As far as the STS itself, no specific training were found to be offered to staff in the literature.

ORG5: What kind of co-operation and communication of activities have to be mobilised?

In the heart of communication and cooperation strategy in the studies there is always a nurse. A consistent nurse case manager who cares for the patient and connects family, tries to understand goals and specific outcomes, provides information and monitors patient and communicates and cooperates with other members of health team to help them understand the patient {240}. A published communication strategy is important, including patient support strategy, communication between patient: nurse, patient: medical doctor, patient: pharmacist, the brochures, diaries to record daily control measurements, web pages with disease information and with instructions, instructions for family members  to share a best practise.

ORG6: How is the quality assurance and monitoring system of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases organised?

Please find the overlapping results in TEC2: What kind of qualification and quality assurance processes are needed for the use or maintenance of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases?

ORG7: What are the processes ensuring access to care of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases for patients/participants?

In general, RM including STS provides greater access to care in geographical terms. In most of the studies the problems with accessability to phone line were not reported. Careful planning of STS is necessary among specific population that might have issues in moving around and having lower access to phone lines. Also, the number of telephone contacts per week should not be too high, not even in the first week as this may affect adherence. The problems might arise on the side of physicians as patients might relocate to more developed health care centres with remote monitoring programs posing financial risk for smaller providers.

Speaking in terms of financial accessability, no specific problems were mentioned on the side of the patient. On the side of the provider, the current reimbursement structures basically do not support STS and hence act as a disincentive to providers wanting to offer RM incl. STS to patients sustaining HF. Innovative reimbursement schemes such as coverage with evidence in development are suggested in the literature.

ORG8: What are the likely budget impacts of implementing the technologies being compared?

While some studies reported  {2} no statistically significant difference in healthcare costs (either total costs or all-cause hospital costs), other studies reported important and significant reductions in costs. While the average costs of intervention across the studies amounted from $23,6 to $443, the reported savings amounted from $30,9 to $536 per patient per month. The savings across studies were reported in various ways which makes them hardly comparable (percentage reduction in inpatient costs, percentage reduction in overall costs, percentage reduction in total health expenditures, reduction in different currencies per patient, per nurse, per year, per month, per 6 months...). However, more important than this is the method of costs calculation that varies widely across the studies. More or less, only direct costs are included, mostly connected to reduction in hospitalizations. More than 70 % of the studies did not take into account expenses in one of the following categories:  healthcare sector, other sectors, patient/family expenses or productivity losses. None of the studies analyzed a shift of cost, from specialits to HF nurse to GP, for instance. In 80% of the studies the source and methods of the evaluations were not clear. Authors mostly focused on direct costs while omitting indirect and intangible costs {310}. Principally, the costs were missing across majority of the studies and those of the intervention overheads, training of personnel, and patient related costs.  There is a difficulty in capturing all of the effects of telehealth intervention. Thus the cost effectiveness evidence for specific implementations in the field of telehealth is limited. Problems with telehealth interventions reside in absence of quality data and appropriate measures. The quality of economic data is especially questionnable. The quality of evidence in the scientific literature is poor. More studies on all costs are needed to reach the unbiased conclusion. 

ORG9: What management problems and opportunities are attached to Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases?

The use of RM has improved as a possible way to improve the management of patients with HF by allowing more frequent assessment of patients without the need for FTF clinical reviews {100}. When planning the introduction of a RM intervention in general, there are several questions that need to be addressed concerning: the choice of patients targeted by these programmes; the parameters that will be monitored; the more efficient way to monitor them; the training of patients and healthcare personnel; how to organize the response of the health care professionals to data obtained from monitoring to optimize patient care {1430}{1}. Possibly management will need to deal with (de)employment of new resources, new information systems, new equipment for STS provisions, new administrative leadership and new group culture that promotes quality improvement {15}{40}.

CUR3 / ORG10: Who decides which people are eligible for Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases and on what basis?

Eligibility to new technology depends on an assessment of the general practitioner of a patient’s condition and the patient's willingness and ability to participate. Access to new technologies depends on support of healthcare providers. In real-world settings, patient selection will be critical for the acceptance and compliance with the programme. Patient selection criteria might include the degree to which the patient is willing to incorporate these technologies into their care or patients at high-risk {40}. Having  an access to a touchtone telephone is an essential inclusion criterion {1} . By Dunagan et al {10} cognitive or psychologic impairment as well as inability to hear and understand English spoken over the telephone were included as non-eligibility criteria.

ORG11: How is Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases accepted?

Adherence to STS programs differs in HM to HH STS programs, it seems that interpersonal interaction with a care provider is an important active component of STS (adherence is higher in HH than HM STS) {40}. Adherence is reported from 55,1% to 84% across the studies, adaptation to the technology to 90% or higher, more than 90% of patietns are statisfied with the use of technolgy. Acceptance of automated voice interactive system was poor, mostly due to technical failures. Patients were generally very satisfied with various STS programs across studies.

 

The clinicians, on the other hand, have several reservations, such as potential increased clinical workload, medicolegal issues, and worries of difficulty of use for some patients due to lack of visual acuity or manual dexterity. The clinicians believed that the telephone interactions is as effective as face-to-face interactions. The clinicians fear that system would result in a significant increase in their workload {91}.

ORG12: How are the other interest groups taken into account in the planning / implementation of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases?

No other interest groups except those mentioned in other assessment elements, are taken into account in the planning / implementation of Telemonitoring in home care for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases.

References

  1. Acosta-Lobos A, Riley JP, Cowie MR. Current and future technologies for remote monitoring in cardiology and evidence  from trial data. Future Cardiol 2012; 8(3):425-37. {100}
  2. Barth V. A nurse-managed discharge program for congestive heart failure patients: outcomes and costs. Home Health Care Manag Pract 2001;l:436–43. Cited by Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Stewart S, Cleland JG. Which components of heart failure programmes are effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: Abridged Cochrane Review. Eur J Heart Fail 2011; 13(9):1028-40. {28}
  3. Berg GD,  Wadhwa S,  Johnson AE.  A matched-cohort study of health services utilization and financial outcomes for a heart failure disease-management program in elderly patients.  Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2004;  52(10):1655-61. {11}
  4. Bringing Healthcare Home: Telemonitoring Gains Enthusiastic Demand. Wed, 07/03/2013.Melissa Barnes, Associate Editor, MDT, find June, 17 2015 on http://www.mdtmag.com/articles/2013/07/bringing-healthcare-home-telemonitoring-gains-enthusiastic-demand {17}
  5. Chaudhry SI, Phillips CO, Stewart SS et al. Telemonitoring for patients with chronic heart failure: a systematic review. J Card Fail 2007; 13(1):56-62. {230}
  6. Chen YH,  Ho YL,  Huang HC et al.   Assessment of the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the management of systolic heart failure in Chinese patients using a home-based intervention. Journal of International Medical Research 2010; 38(1):242-52. {13}
  7. Clark R.A., Inglis S.C., McAlister F.A., Cleland J.G.F., Stewart S. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. Med. J. 2007; 334(7600):942-5. {1280}
  8. Clark RA. Adherence, adaptation and acceptance of elderly chronicheart failure patients to receiving healthcare via telephonemonitoring. European Journal of Heart Failure 2007;9:1104–11. Cited by Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA et al. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (8):CD007228 {29}
  9. Cleland J.G.F., Coletta A.P., Buga L. et al. Clinical trials update from the American Heart Association Meeting 2010: EMPHASIS-HF, RAFT, TIM-HF, Tele-HF, ASCEND-HF, ROCKET-AF, and PROTECT. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2011; 13(4):460-5. {1150}
  10. Cleland JG,  Louis AA,  Rigby AS et al (TEN-HMS Investigators).  Noninvasive home telemonitoring for patients with heart failure at high risk of recurrent admission and death: the Trans-European Network-Home-Care Management System (TEN-HMS) study.  Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2005; 45(10):1654-64 {9}
  11. Conway A, Inglis SC, Clark RA. Effective technologies for noninvasive remote monitoring in heart failure. Telemed J E Health 2014; 20(6):531-8. {270}
  12. Cruickshank J, Winpenny E. Telehealth: what can the NHS learn from experience at the US Veterans Health Administration? London: 2020health.org; 2012. {22}
  13. Dall TM,  Askarinam W, Rachel C et al.   Outcomes and lessons learned from evaluating. American Journal of Managed Care 2010; 16(6):438-46. {8}
  14. DeBusk RF, Miller NH, Parker KM et al. Care management for low-risk patients with heart failure: a randomized, controlled trial Ann.Intern.Med. 2004;141(8):606-613.{15}
  15. Dubner S, Auricchio A, Steinberg JS et al. ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol 2012; 17(1):36-56. {120}
  16. Duffy JR, Hoskins LM, Chen MC. Nonpharmacological strategies for improving heart failure outcomes in the community: a systematic review. J Nurs Care Qual 2004; 19(4):349-60. {240}
  17. Dunagan WC;  Littenberg B;  Ewald GA;  Jones CA;  Emery VB;  Waterman BM;  Silverman DC;  Rogers JG.   Randomized trial of a nurse-administered, telephone-based disease management program for patients with heart failure.   Journal of Cardiac Failure  2005; 11(5):358-65 {10}
  18. Galbreath AD, Krasuski RA, Smith B  et al. Long term health care and cost outcomes of disease management in a large, randomized, community based population with heart failure. Circulation 2004;110:3518-3526. {2}
  19. Grustam AS, Severens JL, van Nijnatten J, Koymans R, Vrijhoef HJ. Cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions for chronic heart failure patients: a literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014; 30(1):59-68. {310}
  20. Gurne O, Conraads V, Missault L et al. A critical review on telemonitoring in heart failure. Acta Cardiol 2012; 67(4):439-44. {80}
  21. Hameed AS, Sauermann S, Schreier G. The impact of adherence on costs and effectiveness of telemedical patient management in heart failure: a systematic review. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5(3):612-20. {250}
  22. Holly C. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure.International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 2011; 9( 3): 274-275. {16}
  23. Inglis S.C., Clark R.A., Mcalister F.A. et al. Benefits of structured telephone support or telemonitoring in heart failure on mortality, hospitalisation and cost: A meta-analysis of 8,323 heart failure patients. Eur. Heart J. 2010; 31:878. {1180}
  24. Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA et al. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (8):CD007228 {490}
  25. Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA et al. Which components of heart failure programmes are effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: Abridged Cochrane Review. Eur J Heart Fail 2011; 13(9):1028-40. {130}
  26. Klersy C., De Silvestri A., Gabutti G., Regoli F., Auricchio A. Telemonitoring in chronic heart failure: A meta-analysis. Eur. Heart J. 2009; 30:713. {1430}
  27. Krum H, Forbes A; Yallop J et al. Telephone support to rural and remote patients with heart failure: the Chronic Heart Failure Assessment by Telephone (CHAT) study. Cardiovascular therapeutics 2013; 31(4):230-7. {18}
  28. Laramee AS, Levinsky SK, Sargent J, Ross R, Callas P. Case management in a heterogeneous congestive heart failure population: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:809–817. Cited by Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Stewart S, Cleland JG. Which components of heart failure programmes are effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: Abridged Cochrane Review. Eur J Heart Fail 2011; 13(9):1028-40.  {24}
  29. MEDS. The New World of Home Health Telemonitoring, August, 2010, author Alan Cohen, Logic PD. Find on June 17, 2015 on http://medsmagazine.com/2010/08/the-new-world-of-home-health-telemonitoring/{12}
  30. Official different tlemedicine providers web sites. Find on intranet, Friday, June 19, 2015 on http://www.telehealth.philips.com/support_consulting.html {11}
  31. Pandor A, Thokala P, Gomersall T et al. Home telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes after recent discharge in patients with heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2013; 17(32):1-207, v-vi. {40}
  32. Purcell R, McInnes S, Halcomb EJ. Telemonitoring can assist in managing cardiovascular disease in primary care: a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMC Fam Pract 2014; 15:43. {290}
  33. Ramachandran K, Husain N, Maikhuri R, Seth S, Vij A, Kumar M, Srivastava N, Prabhakaran D, Airan B, Reddy KS. Impact of a comprehensive telephone-based disease management programme on quality-of-life in patients with heart failure. Natl Med J India 2007;20:67–73. Cited by Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Stewart S, Cleland JG. Which components of heart failure programmes are effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: Abridged Cochrane Review. Eur J Heart Fail 2011; 13(9):1028-40.  {25}
  34. Rasmusson K, Flattery M, Baas LS. American Association of Heart Failure Nurses Position Paper on Educating Patients with Heart Failure Heart Lung 2015; 44(2): 173-177 {7}
  35. Redman B.K. Ethically problematic assumptions regarding patient self management and barriers to improved outcomes. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2006; 6(5):489-94 {1450}.
  36. Riegel B, Carlson B, Glaser D, Romero T. Randomized controlled trial of telephone case management in Hispanics of Mexican origin with heart failure. J Card Fail 2006;12:211–219. Cited by Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Stewart S, Cleland JG. Which components of heart failure programmes are effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: Abridged Cochrane Review. Eur J Heart Fail 2011; 13(9):1028-40. {23}
  37. Riegel B, Carlson B, Kopp Z, LePetri B, Glaser D, Unger A. Effect of a standardized nurse case-management telephone intervention on resource use in patients with chronic heart failure. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:705–712. Cited by Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Stewart S, Cleland JG. Which components of heart failure programmes are effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: Abridged Cochrane Review. Eur J Heart Fail 2011; 13(9):1028-40.  {26}
  38. Schwamm HH. Telehealth: Seven Strategies to Successfully Implement Disruptive Technology and Transform HealthCare. Heart Filure 2014; 33 (2): 200-206. {3}
  39. Seto E, Leonard KJ, Masino C, Cafazzo JA, Barnsley J, Ross HJ Attitudes of heart failure patients and health care providers towards mobile phone-based remote monitoring.J Med Internet Res. 2010 Nov 29;12(4):e55. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1627 {21}
  40. Seto E. Cost comparison between telemonitoring and usual care of heart failure: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health 2008; 14(7):679-86. Canada. {210}
  41. Sousa C., Leite S., Lagido R., Ferreira L., Silva-Cardoso J., Maciel M.J. Telemonitoring in heart failure: A state-of-the-art review. Rev. Port. Cardiol. 2014. {960}
  42. Staples P;  Earle W.   The nature of telephone nursing interventions in a heart failure clinic setting.  Canadian Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing.  18(4):27-33, 2008. {6}
  43. Staples P;  Earle W.   The nature of telephone nursing interventions in a heart failure clinic setting.  Canadian Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 2008; 18(4):27-33. {14}
  44. Stork S, Faller H, Schowalter M, Ertl G, Angermann CE. [Evidence-based disease management in patients with heart failure (HeartNetCare-HF Wurzburg)]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2009; 134(15):773-6. {200}
  45. Takeda A, Taylor SJ, Taylor RS, Khan F, Krum H, Underwood M. Clinical service organisation for heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 9:CD002752. {68}
  46. TELEMONITORING NI. Supporting health and wellbeing at home. Find on June 17, 2015 at http://www.telemonitoringni.info/patients-carers/benefits-and-patient-stories/{19}
  47. Thokala P, Baalbaki H, Brennan A, et al..Telemonitoring after discharge from hospital with heart failure: cost-effectiveness modelling of alternative service designs. BMJ Open 2013;18;3(9):e003250 {85}
  48. Thokala P., Baalbaki H., Brennan A. Telemonitoring after discharge from hospital with heart failure - Cost-effectiveness modelling of alternative service designs. Value Health 2013; 16(7):A530 {1000}
  49. Tsuyuki RT, Fradette M, Johnson JA, Bungard TJ, Eurich DT, Ashton T, Gordon W, Ikuta R, Kornder J, Mackay E, Manyari D, O’Reilly K, Semchuk W. A multicenter disease management program for hospitalized patients with heart failure. J Card Fail 2004;10:473–480. Cited by Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Stewart S, Cleland JG. Which components of heart failure programmes are effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: Abridged Cochrane Review. Eur J Heart Fail 2011; 13(9):1028-40. {27}
  50. Wakefield BJ,  Bylund CL, Holman JE et al.  Nurse and patient communication profiles in a home-based telehealth intervention for heart failure management.  Patient Education & Counseling 2008; 71(2):285-92. {1}
  51. Whellan D.J. Heart failure disease management: Implementation and outcomes. Cardiol. Rev. 2005; 13(5):231-9. {1500}

Social aspects

Authors: Alessandra Lo Scalzo, Ingrid Wilbacher

Summary

The aspects related to patients’ quality of life and satisfaction with STS, patients’ views, perceptions and probable improvements in self care allowed by the use of this intervention, are an important part of the success of this technology.

In the studies where quality of life (QoL) is measured with standardised instruments, there is a significant improvement of QoL in the intervention group or no difference between the usual care and the intervention. Pandor’s systematic review shows that 4 studies which had quality of life as a secondary outcome and where about STS, reported improvements in QoL, with significant improvements in physical [Angermann, 2011] and overall [Barth, 2001, Wakefiled, 2008] measures, but one study found no significant differences between the groups [Riegel, 2006]. Oher (primary) studies we selected gave scattered results. Dunagan et al. 2005 found that nurse-administered, telephone-based disease management intervention had some impact on functional status and quality of life. Piotrowicz et al. 2015 found that the in the intervention group there was a similar improvement in total QoL index as in the control group. Patients who underwent home-based tele rehabilitation observed an improvement mainly in the mental categories. On the other hand Ramachandran et al, 2007 found and increase in quality of life, as a whole and in many dimensions the intervention group that persisted over time. For Jerant 2003 telenursing at least did not have any large negative impact on patient satisfaction or health status. In the study by Boyne et al. 2014 authors conclusions says that tailored telemonitoring was found to educate patients with HF and to improve their self-care abilities and sense of self-efficacy. Domingues and collegues state that in thier study (2011) the educational nursing intervention performed during the hospitalization period brought improved knowledge of HF and self-care in all patients regardless of telephone contac.

The organisational differences among the variuos STS interventions in the selected studies (programs offering exercise, education and behavioral interventions on patients’ psychological outcomes, or monitoring systems of vital signs led by nurses or physician etc.) can help to explain those differences in findings and results and make trasferability and comparability of them difficoult.

To have a deeper understanding about how patients experience the care when it is moved outside of the hospital to their homes with  the support of STS, we also selected qualitative studies which allow to highlight perceptions of patients about complex interventions. From this perspective selected qualitative studies show that there can be positive and negative aspects in using telemedicine and its application such as STS. Lynga et al. 2013 interviews to patients who used the intervention showed, that  the technology was easy to perform, made patients active in their own care, and increased their self-care activities. However, there were concerns of potential deterioration: transmission of body weight reminded patients of illness, deterioration in their health, increase of diuretic dose (inconvenience in the patient’s daily life) and some experienced also a perception of fear that affected their psychological well being.

As regard tro the barriers to the use of the technology, digital divide related to the age or socio-economical status which could avoid patients to use the facilities related to the intervention, we could not retrive definitive and conclusive studies. The qualitative literature that gave an answer to this reaserch question would show digital divide due to age as not being a relevant problem. Seto et al. shows that relatives of those not technology-accustomed would be able to provide support to patient [Seto 2012]. Bond, 2014 finds that most people found the telehealth system easy to use and in the study of Prescher, 2013 most of the patients reported an easy and robust handling of the devices. Nontheless more quantitative studies about the influence of age, gender etc. on the use of STS should be developed to better understand implications of thoses macrosocial variables on the use of STS.

Introduction

Structured telephone support for adult patients with chronic heart failure is an application of telemedicine whose results largely depend on the patients acceptance of this different way of caring for their disease. Its characteristics, such as the indirect or at distance contact that the health professional has with the patient, mediated by the telephone, which does not allow a personal face to face visit, can be seen at the same time as a positive or a negative factor, this depending on the patient’s preference. In turn this preference and acceptance can be related to macro social variables as gender, age, literacy, ethnicity etc. and on the patients’ own psychlogical structure and personal/social/familiy life.

HF Patients who are telemonitored via STS could positively modify their perceptions of quality of life (both social life and individual well being, by e.g. reducing anxiety and feeling more secure) and their self-care behaviors such as obtaining daily weights, doing physical activity, eating a low salt diet, and being in compliance with medication regimes.  Those two aspects can be seen as strictly related according to some authors. Indeed the decrease in QoL for HF patients has been associated mainly to the frequent hospital admissions and this imposes the most relevant personal, social and economic burden [Ferrante et al. 2010]. Since hospital admissions are mainly due to preventable causes (diet, treatment concompliance, inappropriate social support, delayed medical consultation for symptom sof HF progessions) any interventions like telephone support that aim to affect thoses prevenatable causes by enhancing self care behaviors can also enhance quality of life. Quality of life is determined by different components, at individual level and at social level. Anxiety, well being, feeling more secure and monitored, being able to have normal social reletionship at familial, work and firendships level, experiencing a better mental and physical health thanks to any interventions, are some of the aspects that will be analysed in this domain.

 

According to Paradis et al. 2010 the theory of HF Self-care grounded on the principles that patients are the main actors in health decision making and that they should have the tools to manage their health problems, is based on 3 concepts: the concept of self-care maintenance, which includes symptom monitoring and treatment adherence; the concept of self-care management, which includes symptom recognition and evaluation and treatment initiation and evaluation; and the concept of self-care confidence, which is the patients’ perceived capacity to perform self-care. According to the theory, maintenance of self-care will lead to management of self-care, and these two processes will be facilitated if the patient has confidence in performing self-care behaviors. Thus, improving HF patients’ conviction and confidence in their self-care capabilities by education, information and STS monitoring, could improve their health.

 

Including this isues of this domain in the HTA on STS is thus relevant as patient-reported outcomes are to be considered, being integral part of the succes of the technology. What is generally called patient satisfaction is in itself an indicator of quality of care and, e.g., in terms of cost-benefit a satisfied patient can have fewer complaints, fewer second opinions, and fewer repeated investigations, this affecting patients’ adherence to medical treatment regimens [Kraii et al. 2011]. Those aspects related to the patients quality of life with STS and its acceptance and views about it, and the comfort with a program of selfcare and information delivered (training program, check of vital signs etc.) are thus the focus of this chapter.

Methodology

Frame

The collection scope is used in this domain.

TechnologyStructured telephone support (STS) for adult patients with chronic heart failure
Description

Telemonitoring via structured telephone support with focus on patient reported signs (symptoms of congestion, peripheral edema, pulmonary congestion, dyspnea on exertion, abdominal fullness), medication adherence, physiological data (like heart rate, blood pressure, body weight – measured by the patient with home-device), activity level; done in regular schedules using risk stratification (with fixed algorithm by call center staff or experience-based by specialized staff); done by dedicated call centers, center-based staff, nurses, AND reduced visits to a GP or heart center

Intended use of the technologyPrevention

Remote transmission of information to alleviate symptoms, relieve suffering and allow timely treatment for chronic heart failure

Target condition
Chronic cardiac failure
Target condition description

Heart failure is a condition in which the heart has lost the ability to pump enough blood to the body's tissues. With too little blood being delivered, the organs and other tissues do not receive enough oxygen and nutrients to function properly.

Target population

Target population sex: Any. Target population age: adults and elderly. Target population group: Patients who have the target condition.

Target population description

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF; defined as I50 http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/I00-I99/I30-I52/I50-/I50 ) AND hospitalization due to heart failure at least once  AND without implanted devices

ComparisonUsual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist or patient has to move (≠ at home)
Description

Usual care defined as regular schedules of visits of the patient at the heart center/ GP/cardiologist; patient has to move (≠ at home)

Outcomes

Mortality (disease specific and all cause) progressions, admissions, re-admissions, QoL or HRQoL, harms

Assessment elements

TopicIssue RelevantResearch questions or rationale for irrelevance
H0006IndividualHow do patients, citizens and the important others using the technology react and act upon the technology?yesHow adult patients with CHF (and their important others) who uses Structured telephone support (STS) react and act upon this technology and how this affects their satisfaction, quality of life, empowerment?
H0004IndividualWhat kind of changes may the use of the technology generate in the individual's role in the major life areas?yesWhat kind of changes may the use of Structured telephone support (STS) generate in the patients' social life (changes in work, travel ability, family life, patient/physician relationship)
H0012IndividualAre there factors that could prevent a group or persons to participate?yesAre there socio cultural factors that could prevent a group CHF patients (defined by e.g. age, ethnicity, income, geographic area, working staus, geneder etc.) to use Structured telephone support (STS)?
H0003IndividualWhat kind of support and resources are needed for the patient or citizen as the technology is introduced?yesWhat kind of support and resources (e.g. ergonomic changes) are needed for the patient as STS is introduced? This imlies a descriptive response.
H0100IndividualWhat kind of changes do patients or citizens expect?noSelection of H0006 is enough as it includes this question
H0002IndividualWho are the important others that may be affected, in addition to the individual using the technology?noThis question just implies for investigators of SOC to list the probable important other that can be affected. This is something that is preliminary when answering to H0006.
H0007Information exchangeWhat is the knowledge and understanding of the technology in patients and citizens?yesWhat is the knowledge and understanding of Structured telephone support (STS) in CCD patients?
H0013Information exchangeWhat are the social obstacles or prospects in the communication about the technology?noSelection of AE H0007 is enough
H0001Major life areasWhich social areas does the use of the technology influence?noThis AE is important, but subsumable in H0004. So we exclude this as we alredy selected the H0004. Experinece with the production of other core hTA suggests that it is better to stay strict in the selection of AEs, since at the end of the work you usually find many INTRA domain overlaps.
H0011Major life areasWhat kinds of reactions and consequences can the introduction of the technology cause at the overall societal level?noI would stay more focused on the effects of the STS on the CHF patients and important others, and would not deal with overall society/citizens perspective. That is a perspective of people which is not involved in the actual use of this technology.
H0009Major life areasWhat influences patients’ or citizens’ decisions to use the technology?noBy selecting AE H0001-H0006-H0012 and H0007 we alreday try to answer to this question (which is very generic) in a more detailed manner (individual/familial/social factors and factors releted to communication/information that can influence the use of STS).

Methodology description

A review of the literature about structured telephone support and the quality of life, self care, emopowerment, acceptance and impact of gender, age, etc. was performed. We aimed at identifying, first good quality secondary literature (HTA reports, quantitative or qualitative systematic reviews) that included the above outcomes and that could be updated. In the absence of existing reviews we identified primary studies, both qualitative and quantitative.

Information sources

Searches have been run on: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycoINFO, CINAHL, CRD database. We searched articles in English published from 1995 to 2015 (see Appendix 1 for the Search Strategy). We retrieved 497 references, 17 were doubles We excluded 394 articles on the basis of the abstract and selected 78 studies for the full text reading. Records were read and excluded in double.

Inclusion criteria

We included studies about individuals aged 16 or more with chronic heart failure who have been admitted to hospital at least once for chronic heart failure (excluding recipients of implantable cardiac defibrillators, CRTs  or pacemakers), that focussed on structured telephone support and had as an outcome the following domain specific outcomes: patients preferences, views, satisfaction, acceptance, adaptation, adherence, compliance, quality of life, worries, anxiety, confidence,work/family/social life, effect of ethnicity/gender/social and economic status/working status/urban–rural areas on the use of the technology, patient-physician communication/information.

Study Designs

We aimed at including systematic reviews (quantitative) on quality of life with STS and qualitative systematic reviews on patients perceptions/views. We selected primary studies with a quantitative design to update and/or integrate the retrived systematic reviews and selected the relevant qualitative studies for the qualitative part. After the full text reading of the selected articles we excluded 33 studies for the following reasons 1) not our population (5) 2) not our intervention (17) 3) not our outcomes (6) 4) opinions/case/protocols (3)  5) Not in english/not available (2) (see Appendix 2 ). Studies eventually  included were 34 (see Appendix 3. In applying the above general inclusion criteria we needed to be more strict in case of some assessment elements which implied a quantitative response, and less strict (e.g. in the study design) for those assessment elements that allowed more descriptive answers (e.g. reasoning by analogy for tecnhnology and include not comparative study designs etc.). This has been explained in the methods section of each AE’s results card.  

SOC Figure 1

 

Quality assessment tools or criteria

We used the quality checklists AMSTAR for systematic reviews, the CONSORT for RCTs, STROBE for observational studies and the Cochrane guidance for assessments for qualitative studies. See Appendix 4 for the included studies’ quality assessment.

Analysis and synthesis

For each AE’s Results card we gave a qualitative report of the main results of the included secondary and primarty studies that provided an answer to it. 

Result cards

Individual

Result card for SOC1: "How adult patients with CHF (and their important others) who uses Structured telephone support (STS) react and act upon this technology and how this affects their satisfaction, quality of life, empowerment?"

View full card
SOC1: How adult patients with CHF (and their important others) who uses Structured telephone support (STS) react and act upon this technology and how this affects their satisfaction, quality of life, empowerment?
Method
Short Result
Result
Comment

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for SOC2: "What kind of changes may the use of Structured telephone support (STS) generate in the patients&#39; social life (changes in work, travel ability, family life, patient/physician relationship)"

View full card
SOC2: What kind of changes may the use of Structured telephone support (STS) generate in the patients&#39; social life (changes in work, travel ability, family life, patient/physician relationship)
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Critical

Transferability: Partially

Result card for ETH11 / SOC3: "Are there socio cultural factors that could prevent a group CHF patients (defined by e.g. age, ethnicity, income, geographic area, working staus, geneder etc.) to use Structured telephone support (STS)?"

View full card
ETH11 / SOC3: Are there socio cultural factors that could prevent a group CHF patients (defined by e.g. age, ethnicity, income, geographic area, working staus, geneder etc.) to use Structured telephone support (STS)?
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Partially

Result card for SOC4: "What kind of support and resources (e.g. ergonomic changes) are needed for the patient as STS is introduced? This imlies a descriptive response."

View full card
SOC4: What kind of support and resources (e.g. ergonomic changes) are needed for the patient as STS is introduced? This imlies a descriptive response.
Method
Short Result
Result

Importance: Important

Transferability: Completely

Information exchange

Result card for SOC5: "What is the knowledge and understanding of Structured telephone support (STS) in CCD patients?"

View full card
SOC5: What is the knowledge and understanding of Structured telephone support (STS) in CCD patients?
Method
Short Result
Result
Comment

Importance: Important

Transferability: Completely

Discussion

There was a high focus within the included studies on quality of life for the participants within STS projects.

Nontheless evidence is scattered about improvements in QoL and Self-care abilities and sense of self-efficacy in the intervention group: some studies show a significant improvement, others found no difference. Differences in interventions characteristics and organisational factors ca explain this.  For the impact of age, economic status, ethnicity  and other macrosocial variables on patients perceptions of STS we could not find definitive conclusions. Qualitative literature suggests that digital divide due to age is not a relevant problem, above all in near future as new generations, who are accustumed to new technologies, get older and enter the HF more at risk age. In depth understanding of pateints perceptins of this interventions highlights some positive and negative aspects of the intervention: perceptions of being safer and well cared, easy intergartion of selfcare activities and telemonitoring in everyday life, increased empowerment but also, for some patients, increase awarness about their daily health (e.g. weighting everyday) made increase concerns of potential deterioration in HF.

References

  1. Achelrod D. Policy expectations and reality of telemedicine - a critical analysis of health care outcomes, costs and acceptance for congestive heart failure. J Telemed Telecare. 2014;20(4):192-200.
  2. Bohme S, Geiser C, Muhlenhoff T, Holtmann J, Renneberg B. Telephone counseling for patients with chronic heart failure: results of an evaluation study. Int J Behav Med. 2012;19(3):288-97.
  3. Bond CS, Worswick L. Self Management and Telehealth: Lessons Learnt from the Evaluation of a Dorset Telehealth Program. Patient. 2014.
  4. Brandon AF, Schuessler JB, Ellison KJ, Lazenby RB. The effects of an advanced practice nurse led telephone intervention on outcomes  of patients with heart failure. Appl Nurs Res. 2009;22(4):e1-7.
  5. Ciere Y, Cartwright M, Newman SP. A Systematic Review Of The Mediating Role Of Knowledge, Self-Efficacy And Self-Care Behaviour In Telehealth Patients With Heart Failure. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18(7):384-91.
  6. Clark RA, Inglis SC, McAlister FA, Cleland JG, Stewart S. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2007;334(7600):942.
  7. Clark RA, Inglis SC, McAlister FA, Cleland JGF, Stewart S. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. 2007;334(7600):942.
  8. Clark RA, Yallop JJ, Piterman L, Croucher J, Tonkin A, Stewart S, et al. Adherence, adaptation and acceptance of elderly chronic heart failure patients to receiving healthcare via telephone-monitoring. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007;9(11):1104-1
  9. Clarke M, Shah A, Sharma U. Systematic review of studies on telemonitoring of patients with congestive heart  failure: a meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(1):7-14.
  10. Cui Y, Doupe M, Katz A, Nyhof P, Forget EL. Economic evaluation of Manitoba Health Lines in the management of congestive heart failure. Healthc Policy. 2013;9(2):36-50.
  11. Domingues FB, Clausell N, Aliti GB, Dominguez DR, Rabelo ER. Education and telephone monitoring by nurses of patients with heart failure: randomized clinical trial. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2011;96(3):233-9.
  12. Dunagan WC, Littenberg B, Ewald GA, Jones CA, Emery VB, Waterman BM, et al. Randomized trial of a nurse-administered, telephone-based disease management program for patients with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2005;11(5):358-6
  13. Ferrante D, Varini S, Macchia A, Soifer S, Badra R, Nul D, et al. Long-term results after a telephone intervention in chronic heart failure: DIAL (Randomized Trial of Phone Intervention in Chronic Heart Failure) follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(5):372-8.
  14. Garc¡a-Lizana F, Sarr¡a-Santamera A. New technologies for chronic disease management and control: A systematic review. 2007; 13(2):62-8.
  15. Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Ball J, Lewinter C, Cullington D, et al. STRUCTURED TELEPHONE SUPPORT OR TELEMONITORING PROGRAMMES FOR PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC HEART FAILURE. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(8):CD007228.
  16. Inglis sc, clark ra, mcalister fa, stewart s, cleland jg. which components of heart failure programmes are effective? a systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: abridged cochrane review. eur j heart fail. 2011;13(9):1028-40.
  17. Jerant a.f., azari r., martinez c., nesbitt t.s. a randomized trial of telenursing to reduce hospitalization for heart failure: patient-centered outcomes and nursing indicators. home health care serv q 2003; 22
  18. Kraai ih, luttik ml, de jong rm, jaarsma t, hillege hl. heart failure patients monitored with telemedicine: patient satisfaction, a review of the literature. j card fail. 2011;17(8):684-90.
  19. Lind l, karlsson d. telehealth for "the digital illiterate"--elderly heart failure patients experiences. stud health technol inform. 2014;205:353-7.
  20. Lynga p, fridlund b, langius-eklof a, bohm k. perceptions of transmission of body weight and telemonitoring in patients with heart failure? Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2013;8:21524.
  21. Martinez A, Everss E, Rojo-Alvarez JL, Figal DP, Garcia-Alberola A. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE on home monitoring for patients with heart  failure. J Telemed Telecare. 2006;12(5):234-41.
  22. Nanevicz T, Piette J, Zipkin D, Serlin M, Ennis S, De Marco T, et al. The feasibility of a telecommunications service in support of outpatient congestive heart failure care in a diverse patient population. Congest Heart Fail. 2000;6(3):140-5.
  23. Pandor A, Gomersall T, Stevens JW, Wang J, Al-Mohammad A, Bakhai A, et al. remote monitoring after recent hospital discharge in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. heart. 2013;99(23):1717-26.
  24. Pandor A, Thokala P, Gomersall T, Baalbaki H, Stevens JW, Wang J, et al. home telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes after recent discharge in patients with heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation. health technol assess. 2013;17(32):1-207, v-vi.
  25. Piotrowicz E, Stepnowska M, Leszczynska-Iwanicka K et al2015. Quality of life in heart failure patients undergoing home-based telerehabilitation versus outpatient rehabilitation - a randomized controlled study
  26. Prescher S, Deckwart O, Winkler S, Koehler K, Honold M, Koehler F. Telemedical care: feasibility and perception of the patients and physicians: a survey-based acceptance analysis of the Telemedical Interventional Monitoring in  Heart Failure (TIM-HF) trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013;20(2 Suppl):18-24.
  27. Ramachandran K, Husain N, Maikhuri R et al. 2007. Impact of a comprehensive telephone-based disease management programme on quality-of-life in patients with heart failure.
  28. Riegel B, Carlson B, Glaser D, Romero T. Randomized controlled trial of telephone case management in Hispanics of Mexican  origin with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2006;12(3):211-9.
  29. Riley JP, Gabe JP, Cowie MR. Does telemonitoring in heart failure empower patients for self-care? A qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(17-18):2444-55.
  30. Sanders C, Rogers A, Bowen R, Bower P, Hirani S, Cartwright M, et al. Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:220.
  31. Seto E, Leonard KJ, Cafazzo JA, Barnsley J, Masino C, Ross HJ. Perceptions and experiences of heart failure patients and clinicians on the use of mobile phone-based telemonitoring. 2012;14(1):180-9.
  32. Seto E, Leonard KJ, Masino C, Cafazzo JA, Barnsley J, Ross HJ. Attitudes of heart failure patients and health care providers towards mobile phone-based remote monitoring. 2010;12(4):56-65.
  33. Wakefield B.J., Holman J.E., Ray A. et al. 2009Outcomes of a home telehealth intervention for patients with heart failure.
  34. Wakefield BJ, Ward MM, Holman JE, Ray A, Scherubel M, Burns TL, et al. Evaluation of home telehealth following hospitalization for heart failure: a randomized trial. Telemed J E Health. 2008;14(8):753-61.

Appendices

APPENDIX 1 – Search strategy for the Social Domain

Searches has to be run on: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CRD database.  English only. Time: 1995-2015

Keywords for Population and Disease

P: Adults with chronic heart failure (with previous hospital stay due to chronic  heart failure)

I/C: telemonitoring via structured telephone support  (non invasive telemonitoring via structured telephone support human to human or human to machine) VS standard of care

Keywords for outcomes/AEs:

  • Patients preferences/views/satisfaction/acceptance/ Acceptability/ Adaptation/Adherence/compliance/quality of life/Health Related Quality of Life/worries/anxiety/confidence/
  • Travel abilities/work/family life/social life/leisure time/lifestyle/daily activities/ patient’s everyday life/changes in daily routines
  • Access, accessibility ethnicity/gender/social and economic status/working status/urban–rural areas
  • Patients information/communications/patient-physician communication/information

Design: SR, HTA, RCTs, Qualitative studies (interviews, focus groups), observational studies, Patient Related Outcomes studies

3th june 2015 (date for latest updating)

 

Cochrane

Heart Failure, MESH descriptor  explode all trees.

Entry terms:

  • Cardiac Failure
  • Heart Decompensation
  • Decompensation, Heart
  • Heart Failure, Right-Sided
  • Heart Failure, Right Sided
  • Right-Sided Heart Failure
  • Right Sided Heart Failure
  • Myocardial Failure
  • Congestive Heart Failure
  • Heart Failure, Congestive
  • Heart Failure, Left-Sided
  • Heart Failure, Left Sided
  • Left-Sided Heart Failure
  • Left Sided Heart Failure

OR Heart AND (Failure OR Attack)

OR CHF

OR HF

OR congestive heart failure

AND

“Remote Sensing Technology”, MESH descriptor

Explode all tree:

Entry terms:

  • Remote Sensing Technologies
  • Technologies, Remote Sensing
  • Technology, Remote Sensing

OR

“telemedicine” MESH descriptor Explode all tree. Entru terms:

  • Telehealth
  • eHealth
  • Mobile Health
  • Health, Mobile

OR

MeSH descriptor “home care services” this term only OR

  • MeSH descriptor” Home Care Services, Hospital-Based” this term only
  • OR “remote monitoring”
  • OR Telemonitoring
  • OR “Home monitoring”
  • OR teleconsultation
  • OR tele-monitoring
  • OR “distance monitoring”
  • OR “telemedicine system”
  • OR “home care”

OR

Tele*: (title/astract/keyword) AND (monitoring OR contact OR support OR homecare) (title/astract/keyword

Telephone-monitoring: title/astract/keyword OR

Telephone-support: (title/astract/keyword OR

Telephone-contact* (title/astract/keyword OR

“Post-discharge monitoring” : (title/astract/keyword OR

“tele-watch”  :title/astract/keyword OR

“tele home care”title/astract/keyword OR

“tele homecare” : title/astract/keyword OR smartphone: title/astract/keyword OR

smartphone-based: title/astract/keyword OR

telecardiology: title/astract/keyword OR telecoaching: title/astract/keyword

 

AND

MESH descriptor: “quality of life” OR

MESH descriptor:  “activities of daily living” OR

MESH descripto: “leisure activities” OR

MESH descriptor: “Return to work” OR

MESH descriptor: “Physician-Patient Relations” OR

MESH descriptor: “Patient Satisfaction

OR  "length of stay"

 

Ricerca in [Title/Abstract/keyword] per

 

“quality of life” OR

QoL  OR HRQOL

 “patient* preferences OR

 satisfaction OR worries OR anxiety OR comfort

 

(Patients AND (“travel abilities” Or freedom OR “family life” OR “social life” OR “leisure time” OR lifestyle OR “daily activities”)) OR

 

(Patients AND  (preferences OR views OR satisfaction OR worries OR acceptance OR acceptability)  OR adaptation OR adherence OR confidence OR compliance  OR “social and economic status” OR “working status” OR un-employement OR “employement status” OR “working status” OR

 

“patient’s everyday life” OR “changes in daily routines” OR Access OR  accessibility OR ethnicity OR gender OR  OR “urban areas” OR “rural areas” OR information OR communications OR information OR comfort OR  Social Support

 

 

 

NOT

ehealth OR

 web-based OR

 "web based" OR

 internet OR

web OR

 computer OR

internet-based

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEDLINE

 

Heart Failure, MESH descriptor, explode all trees.

Entry terms:

  • Cardiac FailureHeart Decompensation
  • Decompensation, HeartHeart Failure, Right-Sided
  • Heart Failure, Right Sided
  • Right-Sided Heart Failure
  • Right Sided Heart Failure
  • Myocardial Failure
  • Congestive Heart Failure
  • Heart Failure, Congestive
  • Heart Failure, Left-Sided
  • Heart Failure, Left Sided
  • Left-Sided Heart Failure
  • Left Sided Heart Failure

OR

heart adj6 failure

OR

cardiac adj6 failure

OR

Heart AND (failure OR attack)

  • OR CHF
  • OR HF
  • OR “Cardiac Failure”
  • OR “Heart Decompensation”
  • OR “Decompensation, Heart”
  • OR “Myocardial Failure”
  • OR “Congestive Heart Failure”
  • OR “Heart Failure, Congestive”

AND

“Remote Sensing Technology”

MESH descriptor Explode all tree:

Entry terms:

  • Remote Sensing Technologies

  • Technologies, Remote Sensing

  • Technology, Remote Sensing

OR

“telemedicine” MESH descriptor  Explode all tree. Entru terms:

  • Telehealth

  • eHealth

  • Mobile Health

  • Health, Mobile

OR

MeSH descriptor “home care services” this term only

OR

MeSH descriptor” Home Care Services, Hospital-Based” this term only

  • OR “remote monitoring”

  • OR Telemonitoring

  • OR “Home monitoring”

  • OR teleconsultation

  • OR tele-monitoring

  • OR “distance monitoring”

  • OR “telemedicine system”

  • OR “home care”

  • OR teleconsultation

  • OR tele-consultation

OR

"cell phone"[MeSH Terms] OR "telephone"[MeSH Terms] OR

Tele*: title/astract AND (monitoring OR contact OR support OR homecare)

Telephone-monitoring: title/abstract OR

Telephone-support: title/astract OR

Telephone-contact* : title/astract OR

“Post-discharge monitoring” : title/astract OR smartphone OR smartphone-based:

“tele-watch”  : title/astract OR

“tele home care” : title/astract OR

“tele homecare” : title/astract OR

Telecardiology: title/astract OR

Telecoaching: title/abstract OR

 

 

AND

 

 

MESH descriptor: “quality of life” OR

MESH descriptor:  “activities of daily living” OR

MESH descripto: “leisure activities” OR

MESH descriptor: “Return to work” OR

MESH descriptor: “Physician-Patient Relations” OR

MESH descriptor: “Patient Satisfaction

OR "length of stay"

 

Ricerca in [Title/Abstrac] per

 

“quality of life” OR

QoL  OR HRQOL

 “patient* preferences OR comfort

 

(Patients AND (“travel abilities” Or freedom OR “family life” OR “social life” OR “leisure time” OR lifestyle OR “daily activities”)) OR

 

(Patients AND  (preferences OR views OR satisfaction OR worries OR acceptance OR acceptability)  OR adaptation OR adherence OR confidence OR compliance  OR “social and economic status” OR “working status” OR un-employement OR “employement status” OR “working status” OR

 

“patient’s everyday life” OR “changes in daily routines” OR Access OR  accessibility OR ethnicity OR gender OR  OR “urban areas” OR “rural areas” OR information OR communications OR information OR  Social Support

 

 

 

NOT

ehealth OR

 web-based OR

 "web based" OR

 internet OR

web OR

computer OR

internet-based

EMBASE

“Congestive heart failure”/exp

 

OR  “heart failure” /exp

 

OR ’congestive cardiomyopathy’/exp

 

OR CHF

 

OR HF

 

OR  “cardiac failure”/exp

 

OR “cardiac insufficiency”/exp

 

AND

  • 'telemonitoring'/exp
  • OR Teleconsultation/exp
  • OR Telemedicine/exp
  • OR telecommunications/exp
  • Or  telecare$.tw
  • OR  telecardiol$.tw.
  • OR  telemonitor$.tw.
  • OR teleconsult$.tw
  • OR telecare$.tw
  • OR homecare$.tw
  • OR home care$.tw OR

"cell phone" OR telephone  OR Telephone-monitoring OR telephone-support OR

 telephone-contact OR

“Post-discharge monitoring” OR smartphone OR

 smartphone-based OR

 “tele-watch” OR

 “tele home care” OR

 “tele homecare”  OR

 Telecardiology OR

 Telecoaching  OR tele*

 

 

.

 

AND

EMTREE TERM: 'quality of life'/exp OR

EMTREE TERM: work capacity/exp OR

EMTREE TERM: 'life satisfaction'/exp OR

EMTREE TERM: 'patient satisfaction'/exp OR

EMTREE TERM: 'patient information'/exp OR

EMTREE TERM: 'social aspects and related phenomena'/exp OR "length of stay"

 

“quality of life” OR QoL OR “Travel abilities”  OR recreation or work or “family life” OR “social life” OR “leisure time” OR lifestyle” OR “daily activities” OR “patient* preferences OR satisfaction OR worries OR anxiety OR “working staus” OR un-employment” OR employment  OR –“SF-36 mental score”  OR

“SF-36 physical score” OR

(Patients and (“travel abilities” Or freedom OR word OR “family life” OR “social life” OR “leisure time” OR lifestyle OR “daily activities”)) OR

(Patients AND  (preferences OR views OR satisfaction OR worries OR anxiety OR religion OR ethnic  OR gender OR “social and economic status” OR “working status” OR un-employement OR “employement status” OR “working status” OR ((urban or rural) and patients) OR i((nformation OR communication OR information) AND  (patients OR physician)

OR Self-Care OR comfort OR  Social Support

NOT

ehealth OR

 web-based OR

 "web based" OR

 internet OR

web OR

computer OR

internet-based

Cinhal

(MH“Congestive heart failure”)

 

OR (MH “heart failure” )

 

OR “congestive cardiomyopathy”

 

 OR  cardiomyopathy

 

OR CHF

 

OR HF

 

OR  cardiac and (failure or insufficiency)

 

AND

"cell phone" OR telephone  OR Telephone-monitoring OR telephone-support OR

 telephone-contact OR

“Post-discharge monitoring” OR smartphone OR

 smartphone-based OR

 “tele-watch” OR

 “tele home care” OR

 “tele homecare”  OR

 Telecardiology OR

 Telecoaching  OR tele*

 

AND

(MH "Quality of Working Life") OR (MH "Employment Status") OR (MH "Job Satisfaction") OR (MH "Job Re-Entry") OR (MH "Self Employment") OR (MH  "Work Experiences") OR (MH " OR "quality of life" OR QoL  OR HRQOL ) OR preferences OR views OR satisfaction OR worries OR anxiety OR religion OR ethnic  OR “social and economic status” OR “working status” OR un-employement OR “employement status” OR   Patients  AND (urban or rural) OR information OR communication OR "leisure activities" OR "work retun"  OR 'social aspects” OR “social activities” OR “rural areas” OR "length of stay"

 

Psychinfo

Congestive heart failure OR   heart failure OR congestive cardiomyopathy OR CHF OR HF OR  cardiac and (failure or insufficiency)

 AND

"cell phone" OR telephone  OR Telephone-monitoring OR telephone-support OR  telephone-contact OR “Post-discharge monitoring” OR smartphone OR

 smartphone-based OR  “tele-watch” OR  “tele home care” OR  “tele homecare”  OR  Telecardiology OR  Telecoaching  OR tele*

AND

 quality of life OR preferences OR job satisfaction life OR satisfaction working OR social OR employement OR worries OR anxiety OR communicationOR information OR social status OR working status OR urban areas OR rural areas OR social aspects or leisure activities

APPENDIX 2 List of excluded studies with reasons

Excluded not our population

Barlow J, Singh D, Bayer S, Curry R. A Systematic Review Of The Benefits Of Home Telecare For Frail Elderly People And Those With Long-Term Conditions. 2007;13(4):172-9.

Barnason S, Zimmerman L, Nieveen J, Schmaderer M, Carranza B, Reilly S. Impact of a home communication intervention for coronary artery bypass graft patients with ischemic heart failure on self-efficacy, coronary disease risk factor modification, and functioning. Heart Lung. 2003;32(3):147-58.

Bekelman DB, Hooker S, Nowels CT et al. Feasibility and acceptability of a collaborative care intervention to improve symptoms and quality of life in chronic heart failure: mixed methods pilot trial. J Palliat Med 2014; 17(2):145-5

O'Neil, Hawkes A.L. Atherton J.J. et al. Telephone-delivered health coaching improves anxiety outcomes after myocardial infarction: The 'ProActive Heart' trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014;21(1):30-8.

Keeling A.W., Dennison P.D. Nurse-initiated telephone follow-up after acute myocardial infarction: A pilot study. HEART LUNG J. CRIT. CARE 1995; 24(1):45-9.

Excluded not our intervention

Blum K, Gottlieb SS. The effect of a randomized trial of home telemonitoring on medical costs, 30-day  readmissions, mortality, and health-related quality of life in a cohort of community-dwelling heart failure patients. J Card Fail 2014; 20(7):513-21

Boyne JJ, Vrijhoef HJ, Spreeuwenberg M, De Weerd G, Kragten J, Gorgels AP. Effects of tailored telemonitoring on heart failure patients' knowledge, self-care, self-efficacy and adherence: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2014;13(3):243-52

Cardozo L, Steinberg J. Telemedicine for recently discharged older patients. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16(1):49-55.

Clark AP, McDougall G, Riegel B, Joiner-Rogers G, Innerarity S, Meraviglia M, et al. Health Status and Self-care Outcomes After an Education-Support Intervention for People With Chronic Heart Failure. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2014.

Dansky KH, Vasey J, Bowles K. Use of telehealth by older adults to manage heart failure. Res Gerontol Nurs 2008; 1(1):25-32.

Dinesen B, Nohr C, Andersen SK, Sejersen H, Toft E. Under surveillance, yet looked after: telehomecare as viewed by patients and their spouse/partners. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008;7(3):239-46.

Domingo M, Lupon J, Gonzalez B, Crespo E, Lopez R, Ramos A, et al. Evaluation of a telemedicine system for heart failure patients: feasibility, acceptance rate, satisfaction and changes in patient behavior: results from the CARME (CAtalan Remote Management Evaluation) study. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2012;11(4):410-8.

Fairbrother P, Ure J, Hanley J, McCloughan L, Denvir M, Sheikh A, et al. Telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: the views of patients and healthcare professionals - a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(1-2):132-44.

Konstam V, Gregory D, Chen J et al. Health-related quality of life in a multicenter randomized controlled comparison  of telephonic disease management and automated home monitoring in patients recently hospitalized with heart failure: SPAN-CHF II trial. J Card Fail 2011; 17(2):151-7.

Louis AA, Turner T, Gretton M, Baksh A, Cleland JG. A Systematic Review Of Telemonitoring For The Management Of Heart Failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2003;5(5):583-90.

Mayour R, Welstand J, Tyndel S, J Setting up and auditing guideline- and evidence-based cardiac rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2005;4(1):23-8.

Obeh B, Kayyali R, Nabhani-Gebara S, Philip N, Robinson P, Wallace CR. Evaluation of a Telehealth Service for COPD and HF patients: Clinical outcome and patients' perceptions. J Telemed Telecare. 2015.

Paradis V, Cossette S, Frasure-Smith N, Heppell S, Guertin MC. The efficacy of a motivational nursing intervention based on the stages of change on self-care in heart failure patients. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2010;25(2):130-41.

Schwarz KA, Mion LC, Hudock D, Litman G. Telemonitoring of heart failure patients and their caregivers: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008;23(1):18-26.

Shaw JD, O'Neal DJr, Siddharthan K, Neugaard BI. Pilot program to improve self-management of  patients with heart failure by redesigning care coordination. Nurs Res Pract. 2014;2014:836921.

Takeda A, Taylor Stephanie JC, Taylor Rod S, Khan F, Krum H, Underwood M, et al. Clinical Service Organisation For Heart Failure: Structured Telephone Support Or Telemonitoring Programmes For Patients With Chronic Heart Failure. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Young B, Purden M, Sauve N, Dufour L, Common C. A "basket of care" for heart failure patients managing at home: evaluating a community-based nursing intervention from a patient's perspective. Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008;18(4):10-9.

Roth A, Korb H, Gadot R, Kalter E. Telecardiology for patients with acute or chronic cardiac complaints: the 'SHL' experience in Israel and Germany. Int J Med Inform. 2006;75(9):643-5.

Hobban MB, Fedor M, Reeder S, Chernick M. The effect of telemonitoring at home on quality of life and self-care behaviors of patients with heart failure. Home Healthc Nurse. 2013;31(7):368-77.

Mittag O., China C., Hoberg E. et al. 2006Outcomes of cardiac rehabilitation with versus without a follow-up intervention rendered by telephone (Luebeck follow-up trial): Overall and gender-specific effects.

Nanevicz

Hawkes, T.A. P, J. A, R.S. W, C.B. T, A. ON, et al. Effect of a telephone-delivered coronary heart disease secondary prevention program (proactive heart) on quality of life and health behaviours: primary outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Int J Behav Med. 2013;20(3):413-24.

Quinn C. 2006Low-technology heart failure care in home health: improving patient outcomes.

Radhakrishnan K, Jacelon C2012Impact of telehealth on patient self-management of heart failure: a review of literature.

Saunders MM. Perspectives from family caregivers receiving home nursing support: findings from a qualitative study of home care patients with heart failure. Home Healthc Nurse. 2012;30(2):82-90.

Wang XH, Qiu JB, Ju Y et al, 2014. Reduction of heart failure rehospitalization using a weight management education  intervention.

Whitten P., Mickus M. 2007. Home telecare for COPD/CHF patients: outcomes and perceptions.

Excluded not our outcomes

Galbreath A.D., Krasuski R.A., Smith B. et al. Long-term healthcare and cost outcomes of disease management in a large, randomized, community-based population with heart failure. Circulation 2004; 110(23):3518-26.

Guiraud T, Granger R, Gremeaux V et al. Telephone support oriented by accelerometric measurements enhances adherence to physical activity recommendations in noncompliant patients after a cardiac rehabilitation program. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93(12):2141-7.

Maric B, Kaan A, Ignaszewski A, Lear SA. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF TELEMONITORING TECHNOLOGIES IN HEART FAILURE. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009;11(5):506-17.

Paget T, Jones C, Davies M, Evered C, Lewis C. Using home telehealth to empower patients to monitor and manage long term conditions. Nurs Times. 2010;106(45):17-9.

Rahimpour M, Lovell NH, Celler BG, McCormick J. Patients' perceptions of a home telecare system. Int J Med Inform. 2008;77(7):486-98.

Riegel B, Carlson B, Glaser D, Romero T. Randomized controlled trial of telephone case management in Hispanics of Mexican  origin with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2006;12(3):211-9.

Shearer NB, Cisar N, Greenberg EA. 2007. A telephone-delivered empowerment intervention with patients diagnosed with heart failure.

Sohn S, Helms TM, Pelleter JT, Muller A, Krottinger AI, Schoffski O. 2012. Costs and benefits of personalized healthcare for patients with chronic heart failure in the care and education program "Telemedicine for the Heart".

Venter A, Burns R, Hefford M, Ehrenberg N2012Results of a telehealth-enabled chronic care management service to support people with long-term conditions at home.

Letter to editors/protocols/abstract/editorial

Grancelli HO, Ferrante DC. Telephone interventions for disease management in heart failure. BMJ. 2007;334(7600):910-1.

Piette JD, Rosland A-M, Marinec NS, Bernstein SJ, Silveira MJ. Engagement with automated patient monitoring and self-management support calls: Experience with a thousand chronically ill patients. 2013;51(3):216-23.

Saxon LA, Boehmer JP, Neuman S, Mullin CM. Remote Active Monitoring in Patients with Heart Failure (RAPID-RF): design and rationale. J Card Fail. 2007;13(4):241-6.

Excluded not English text

Brotons C, Falces C, Alegre J et al. Randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of a home-based intervention in patients with heart failure: the IC-DOM study. Rev Esp Cardiol 2009; 62(4):400-8.

Not available

Riegel B, Carlson B, Kopp Z, LePetri B, Glaser D, Unger A. Effect of a standardized nurse case-management telephone intervention on resource use in patients with chronic heart failure. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(6):705-12.

APPENDIX 3 List of included studies
  1. Achelrod D. Policy expectations and reality of telemedicine - a critical analysis of health care outcomes, costs and acceptance for congestive heart failure. J Telemed Telecare. 2014;20(4):192-200.
  2. Bohme S, Geiser C, Muhlenhoff T, Holtmann J, Renneberg B. Telephone counseling for patients with chronic heart failure: results of an evaluation study. Int J Behav Med. 2012;19(3):288-97.
  3. Bond CS, Worswick L. Self Management and Telehealth: Lessons Learnt from the Evaluation of a Dorset Telehealth Program. Patient. 2014.
  4. Brandon AF, Schuessler JB, Ellison KJ, Lazenby RB. The effects of an advanced practice nurse led telephone intervention on outcomes  of patients with heart failure. Appl Nurs Res. 2009;22(4):e1-7.
  5. Ciere Y, Cartwright M, Newman SP. A Systematic Review Of The Mediating Role Of Knowledge, Self-Efficacy And Self-Care Behaviour In Telehealth Patients With Heart Failure. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18(7):384-91.
  6. Clark RA, Inglis SC, McAlister FA, Cleland JG, Stewart S. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2007;334(7600):942.
  7. Clark RA, Inglis SC, McAlister FA, Cleland JGF, Stewart S. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. 2007;334(7600):942.
  8. Clark RA, Yallop JJ, Piterman L, Croucher J, Tonkin A, Stewart S, et al. Adherence, adaptation and acceptance of elderly chronic heart failure patients to receiving healthcare via telephone-monitoring. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007;9(11):1104-1
  9. Clarke M, Shah A, Sharma U. Systematic review of studies on telemonitoring of patients with congestive heart  failure: a meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(1):7-14.
  10. Cui Y, Doupe M, Katz A, Nyhof P, Forget EL. Economic evaluation of Manitoba Health Lines in the management of congestive heart failure. Healthc Policy. 2013;9(2):36-50.
  11. Domingues FB, Clausell N, Aliti GB, Dominguez DR, Rabelo ER. Education and telephone monitoring by nurses of patients with heart failure: randomized clinical trial. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2011;96(3):233-9.
  12. Dunagan WC, Littenberg B, Ewald GA, Jones CA, Emery VB, Waterman BM, et al. Randomized trial of a nurse-administered, telephone-based disease management program for patients with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2005;11(5):358-6
  13. Ferrante D, Varini S, Macchia A, Soifer S, Badra R, Nul D, et al. Long-term results after a telephone intervention in chronic heart failure: DIAL (Randomized Trial of Phone Intervention in Chronic Heart Failure) follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(5):372-8.
  14. Garc¡a-Lizana F, Sarr¡a-Santamera A. New technologies for chronic disease management and control: A systematic review. 2007; 13(2):62-8.
  15. Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Ball J, Lewinter C, Cullington D, et al. STRUCTURED TELEPHONE SUPPORT OR TELEMONITORING PROGRAMMES FOR PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC HEART FAILURE. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(8):CD007228.
  16. Inglis sc, clark ra, mcalister fa, stewart s, cleland jg. which components of heart failure programmes are effective? a systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: abridged cochrane review. eur j heart fail. 2011;13(9):1028-40.
  17. Jerant a.f., azari r., martinez c., nesbitt t.s. a randomized trial of telenursing to reduce hospitalization for heart failure: patient-centered outcomes and nursing indicators. home health care serv q 2003; 22
  18. Kraai ih, luttik ml, de jong rm, jaarsma t, hillege hl. heart failure patients monitored with telemedicine: patient satisfaction, a review of the literature. j card fail. 2011;17(8):684-90.
  19. Lind l, karlsson d. telehealth for "the digital illiterate"--elderly heart failure patients experiences. stud health technol inform. 2014;205:353-7.
  20. Lynga p, fridlund b, langius-eklof a, bohm k. perceptions of transmission of body weight and telemonitoring in patients with heart failure? Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2013;8:21524.
  21. Martinez A, Everss E, Rojo-Alvarez JL, Figal DP, Garcia-Alberola A. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE on home monitoring for patients with heart  failure. J Telemed Telecare. 2006;12(5):234-41.
  22. Nanevicz T, Piette J, Zipkin D, Serlin M, Ennis S, De Marco T, et al. The feasibility of a telecommunications service in support of outpatient congestive heart failure care in a diverse patient population. Congest Heart Fail. 2000;6(3):140-5.
  23. Pandor A, Gomersall T, Stevens JW, Wang J, Al-Mohammad A, Bakhai A, et al. remote monitoring after recent hospital discharge in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. heart. 2013;99(23):1717-26.
  24. Pandor A, Thokala P, Gomersall T, Baalbaki H, Stevens JW, Wang J, et al. home telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes after recent discharge in patients with heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation. health technol assess. 2013;17(32):1-207, v-vi.
  25. Piotrowicz E, Stepnowska M, Leszczynska-Iwanicka K et al2015. Quality of life in heart failure patients undergoing home-based telerehabilitation versus outpatient rehabilitation - a randomized controlled study
  26. Prescher S, Deckwart O, Winkler S, Koehler K, Honold M, Koehler F. Telemedical care: feasibility and perception of the patients and physicians: a survey-based acceptance analysis of the Telemedical Interventional Monitoring in  Heart Failure (TIM-HF) trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013;20(2 Suppl):18-24.
  27. Ramachandran K, Husain N, Maikhuri R et al. 2007. Impact of a comprehensive telephone-based disease management programme on quality-of-life in patients with heart failure.
  28. Riegel B, Carlson B, Glaser D, Romero T. Randomized controlled trial of telephone case management in Hispanics of Mexican  origin with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2006;12(3):211-9.
  29. Riley JP, Gabe JP, Cowie MR. Does telemonitoring in heart failure empower patients for self-care? A qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(17-18):2444-55.
  30. Sanders C, Rogers A, Bowen R, Bower P, Hirani S, Cartwright M, et al. Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:220.
  31. Seto E, Leonard KJ, Cafazzo JA, Barnsley J, Masino C, Ross HJ. Perceptions and experiences of heart failure patients and clinicians on the use of mobile phone-based telemonitoring. 2012;14(1):180-9.
  32. Seto E, Leonard KJ, Masino C, Cafazzo JA, Barnsley J, Ross HJ. Attitudes of heart failure patients and health care providers towards mobile phone-based remote monitoring. 2010;12(4):56-65.
  33. Wakefield B.J., Holman J.E., Ray A. et al. 2009Outcomes of a home telehealth intervention for patients with heart failure.
  34. Wakefield BJ, Ward MM, Holman JE, Ray A, Scherubel M, Burns TL, et al. Evaluation of home telehealth following hospitalization for heart failure: a randomized trial. Telemed J E Health. 2008;14(8):753-61.
APPENDIX 4 – Quality Assessment of included studies

For the quality assessment of the included studies we used

  • The AMSTAR guideline for systematic reviews {1}
  • The CONSORT 2010 checklist for RCTs {2}
  • The STROBE checklist for observational studies {3}
  • The Cochrane guideline for critical appraisal of qualitative studies {4}

The different checklists were merged by using the percentage rates of „yes“, „no“ or „n.a.“ of the checklists divided per number of items.

Results

Green – low bias risk, yellow – unclear bias risk, red – high bias risk

SOC Figure 2

Basic list to the graph about the Quality assessment of included studies for SOC domain STS for patient with CHF 2015

 

checklist used

yes

no

n.a.

total

yes %

n.a. %

no %

Achelrod 2014

AMSTAR

5

4

1

10

50,0

10,0

40,0

Martinez 2006

AMSTAR

10

1

0

11

90,9

0,0

9,1

Ciere 2012

AMSTAR

7

2

2

11

63,6

18,2

18,2

Garcia 2007

AMSTAR

4

7

0

11

36,4

0,0

63,6

Inglis 2011

AMSTAR

10

0

1

11

90,9

9,1

0,0

Kraii 2011

AMSTAR

6

5

0

11

54,5

0,0

45,5

Pandor 2013 (24)

AMSTAR

10