Hansen Claudius, Loges Christian, Seidl Karlheinz, Eberhardt Frank, Tröster Herbert, Petrov Krum, Grönefeld Gerian, Bramlage Peter, Birkenhauer Frank, Weiss Christian
Herz- und Gefäßzentrum am Krankenhaus Neu-Bethlehem, Humboldtallee 6, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
SLK-Kliniken Heilbronn Klinikum am Plattenwald, Bad Friedrichshall, Germany.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2018 Jun 28;18(1):131. doi: 10.1186/s12872-018-0864-7.
In heart failure (HF) patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) or cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators (CRT-D), remote monitoring has been shown to result in at least non-inferior outcomes relative to in-clinic visits. We aimed to provide further evidence for this effect, and to assess whether adding telephone follow-ups to remote follow-ups influenced outcomes.
InContact was a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Subjects receiving quarterly automated follow-up only (telemetry group) were compared to those receiving personal physician contact. Personal contact patients were further divided into those receiving automated follow-up plus a telephone call (remote+phone subgroup) or in-clinic visits only.
Two hundred and ten patients underwent randomisation (telemetry n = 102; personal contact n = 108 [remote+phone: n = 53; visit: n = 55]). Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups and subgroups. Over 12 months, 34.8% of patients experienced deterioration of their Packer Clinical Composite Response, with no significant difference between the telemetry group and personal care (p > 0.999), remote+phone (p = 0.937) or visit (p = 0.940) patients; predefined non-inferiority criteria were met. Mortality rates (5.2% overall) were comparable between groups and subgroups (p = 0.832/p = 0.645), as were HF-hospitalisation rates (11.0% overall; p = 0.605/p = 0.851). The proportion of patients requiring ≥1 unscheduled follow-up was nominally higher in telemetry and remote+phone groups (42.2 and 45.3%) compared to the visit group (29.1%). Overall, ≥ 1 ICD therapy was delivered to 15.2% of patients.
In HF patients with ICDs/CRT-Ds, quarterly remote follow-up only over 12 months was non-inferior to regular personal contact. Addition of quarterly telephone follow-ups to remote monitoring does not appear to offer any clinical advantage.
clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01200381 (retrospectively registered on September 13th 2010).
在植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)或心脏再同步化治疗除颤器(CRT-D)的心力衰竭(HF)患者中,远程监测已被证明相对于门诊随访至少具有非劣效性结果。我们旨在为这种效果提供进一步的证据,并评估在远程随访中增加电话随访是否会影响结果。
InContact是一项前瞻性、随机、多中心研究。将仅接受季度自动随访的受试者(遥测组)与接受个人医生联系的受试者进行比较。个人联系患者进一步分为接受自动随访加电话随访的患者(远程+电话亚组)或仅接受门诊随访的患者。
210例患者进行了随机分组(遥测组n = 102;个人联系组n = 108 [远程+电话组:n = 53;门诊组:n = 55])。各组和亚组之间的基线特征具有可比性。在12个月期间,34.8%的患者出现Packer临床综合反应恶化,遥测组与个人护理组(p > 0.999)、远程+电话组(p = 0.937)或门诊组(p = 0.940)患者之间无显著差异;达到了预先定义的非劣效性标准。各组和亚组之间的死亡率(总体为5.2%)具有可比性(p = 0.832/p = 0.645),心力衰竭住院率(总体为11.0%;p = 0.605/p = 0.851)也是如此。遥测组和远程+电话组中需要≥1次非计划随访的患者比例(分别为42.2%和45.3%)名义上高于门诊组(29.1%)。总体而言,15.2%的患者接受了≥1次ICD治疗。
在植入ICD/CRT-D的HF患者中,12个月期间仅进行季度远程随访不劣于定期个人联系。在远程监测中增加季度电话随访似乎没有任何临床优势。
clinicaltrials.gov:NCT01200381(于2010年9月13日追溯注册)。