Search

BACKGROUND Smartphone compatible wearables have been released on the consumers market, enabling remote monitoring. Remote monitoring is often named as a tool to reduce the cost of care. OBJECTIVE The primary purpose of this paper is to describe a cost-utility analysis of an eHealth intervention compared to regular follow-up in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS In this trial, of which clinical results have been published previously, patients with an AMI were randomized in a 1:1 fashion between an eHealth intervention and regular follow-up. The remote monitoring intervention consisted of a blood pressure monitor, weight scale, electrocardiogram device, and step counter. Furthermore, two in-office outpatient clinic visits were replaced by e-visits. The control group received regular care. The differences in mean costs and quality of life per patient between both groups during one-year follow-up were calculated. RESULTS Mean costs per patient were €2417±2043 (US $2657±2246) for the intervention and €2888±2961 (US $3175±3255) for the control group. This yielded a cost reduction of €471 (US $518) per patient. This difference was not statistically significant (95% CI –€275 to €1217; P=.22, US $–302 to $1338). The average quality-adjusted life years in the first year of follow-up was 0.74 for the intervention group and 0.69 for the control (difference –0.05, 95% CI –0.09 to –0.01; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS eHealth in the outpatient clinic setting for patients who suffered from AMI is likely to be cost-effective compared to regular follow-up. Further research should be done to corroborate these findings in other patient populations and different care settings. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02976376; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02976376 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/resprot.8038

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) is an emerging field of scientific interest worldwide. Potential benefits include increased patient engagement, improved clinical outcomes, and reduced health care costs. However, mHealth is often studied in projects or trials, and structural implantation in clinical practice is less common. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this paper is to outline the design of the Box and its implementation and use in an outpatient clinic setting. The impact on logistical outcomes and patient and provider satisfaction is discussed. METHODS In 2016, an mHealth care track including smartphone-compatible devices, named the Box, was implemented in the cardiology department of a tertiary medical center in the Netherlands. Patients with myocardial infarction, rhythm disorders, cardiac surgery, heart failure, and congenital heart disease received devices to measure daily weight, blood pressure, heart rate, temperature, and oxygen saturation. In addition, professional and patient user comments on the experience with the care track were obtained via structured interviews. RESULTS From 2016 to April 2020, a total of 1140 patients were connected to the mHealth care track. On average, a Box cost €350 (US $375), not including extra staff costs. The median patient age was 60.8 (IQR 52.9-69.3) years, and 73.59% (839/1140) were male. A median of 260 (IQR 105-641) measurements was taken on a median of 189 (IQR 98-372) days. Patients praised the ease of use of the devices and felt more involved with their illness and care. Professionals reported more productive outpatient consultations as well as improved insight into health parameters such as blood pressure and weight. A feedback loop from the hospital to patient to focus on measurements was commented as an important improvement by both patients and professionals. CONCLUSIONS In this study, the design and implementation of an mHealth care track for outpatient follow-up of patients with various cardiovascular diseases is described. Data from these 4 years indicate that mHealth is feasible to incorporate in outpatient management and is generally well-accepted by patients and providers. Limitations include the need for manual measurement data checks and the risk of data overload. Moreover, the tertiary care setting in which the Box was introduced may limit the external validity of logistical and financial end points to other medical centers. More evidence is needed to show the effects of mHealth on clinical outcomes and on cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND Polysomnography is the gold standard for detection of central sleep apnea in patients with stable heart failure. However, this procedure is costly, time consuming, and a burden to the patient and therefore unsuitable as a screening method. An electronic health (eHealth) app to measure overnight oximetry may be an acceptable screening alternative, as it can be automatically analyzed and is less burdensome to patients. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess whether overnight pulse oximetry using a smartphone-compatible oximeter can be used to detect central sleep apnea in a population with stable heart failure. METHODS A total of 26 patients with stable heart failure underwent one night of both a polygraph examination and overnight saturation using a smartphone-compatible oximeter. The primary endpoint was agreement between the oxygen desaturation index (ODI) above or below 15 on the smartphone-compatible oximeter and the diagnosis of the polygraph. RESULTS The median age of patients was 66.4 (interquartile range, 62-71) years and 92% were men. The median body mass index was 27.1 (interquartile range, 24.4-30.8) kg/m2. Two patients were excluded due to incomplete data, and two other patients were excluded because they could not use a smartphone. Seven patients had central sleep apnea, and 6 patients had obstructive sleep apnea. Of the 7 (of 22, 32%) patients with central sleep apnea that were included in the analysis, 3 (13%) had an ODI≥15. Of all patients without central sleep apnea, 8 (36%) had an ODI CONCLUSIONS Oxygen desaturation measured by this smartphone-compatible oximeter is a weak predictor of central sleep apnea in patients with stable heart failure.