Aim: To compare the utility of the partners-heart failure (HF) algorithm with the care alert strategy for remote monitoring, in guiding clinical actions oriented to treat impending HF. Methods: Consecutive cardiac resynchronization-defibrillator recipients were followed with biweekly automatic transmissions. After every transmission, patients received a phone contact in order to check their health status, eventually followed by clinical actions, classified as "no-action", "non-active" and "active". Active clinical actions were oriented to treat impending HF. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy of the partners-HF algorithm vs care alert in determining active clinical actions oriented to treat pre-HF status and to prevent an acute decompensation, were also calculated. Results: The study population included 70 patients with moderate to advanced systolic HF and QRS duration longer than 120 ms. During a mean follow-up of 8 ± 2 mo, 665 transmissions were collected. No deaths or HF hospitalizations occurred. The sensitivity and specificity of the partners-HF algorithm for active clinical actions oriented to treat impending HF were 96.9% (95%CI: 0.96-0.98) and 92.5% (95%CI: 0.90-0.94) respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 84.6% (95%CI: 0.82-0.87) and 98.6% (95%CI: 0.98-0.99) respectively. The partners-HF algorithm had an accuracy of 93.8% (95%CI: 0.92-0.96) in determining active clinical actions. With regard to active clinical actions, care alert had a sensitivity and specificity of 11.05% (95%CI: 0.09-0.13) and 93.6% respectively (95%CI: 0.92-0.95). The positive predictive value was 42.3% (95%CI: 0.38-0.46); the negative predictive value was 71.1% (95%CI: 0.68-0.74). Care alert had an accuracy of 68.9% (95%CI: 0.65-0.72) in determining active clinical actions. Conclusion: The partners-HF algorithm proved higher accuracy and sensitivity than care alert in determining active clinical actions oriented to treat impending HF. Future studies in larger populations should evaluate partners-HF ability to improve HF-related clinical outcome
Comparison of partners-heart failure algorithm vs care alert in remote heart failure management / Calo', Leonardo; Martino, Annamaria; Tota, Claudia; Fagagnini, Alessandro; Iulianella, Renzo; Rebecchi, Marco; Sciarra, Luigi; Giunta, Giuseppe; Romano, Maria Grazia; Colaceci, Roberto; Ciccaglioni, Antonio; Ammirati, Fabrizio; de Ruvo, Ermenegildo. - In: WORLD JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY. - ISSN 1949-8462. - STAMPA. - 7:12(2015), pp. 922-930. [10.4330/wjc.v7.i12.922]
Comparison of partners-heart failure algorithm vs care alert in remote heart failure management
MARTINO, ANNAMARIA;REBECCHI, MARCO;CICCAGLIONI, Antonio;
2015
Abstract
Aim: To compare the utility of the partners-heart failure (HF) algorithm with the care alert strategy for remote monitoring, in guiding clinical actions oriented to treat impending HF. Methods: Consecutive cardiac resynchronization-defibrillator recipients were followed with biweekly automatic transmissions. After every transmission, patients received a phone contact in order to check their health status, eventually followed by clinical actions, classified as "no-action", "non-active" and "active". Active clinical actions were oriented to treat impending HF. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy of the partners-HF algorithm vs care alert in determining active clinical actions oriented to treat pre-HF status and to prevent an acute decompensation, were also calculated. Results: The study population included 70 patients with moderate to advanced systolic HF and QRS duration longer than 120 ms. During a mean follow-up of 8 ± 2 mo, 665 transmissions were collected. No deaths or HF hospitalizations occurred. The sensitivity and specificity of the partners-HF algorithm for active clinical actions oriented to treat impending HF were 96.9% (95%CI: 0.96-0.98) and 92.5% (95%CI: 0.90-0.94) respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 84.6% (95%CI: 0.82-0.87) and 98.6% (95%CI: 0.98-0.99) respectively. The partners-HF algorithm had an accuracy of 93.8% (95%CI: 0.92-0.96) in determining active clinical actions. With regard to active clinical actions, care alert had a sensitivity and specificity of 11.05% (95%CI: 0.09-0.13) and 93.6% respectively (95%CI: 0.92-0.95). The positive predictive value was 42.3% (95%CI: 0.38-0.46); the negative predictive value was 71.1% (95%CI: 0.68-0.74). Care alert had an accuracy of 68.9% (95%CI: 0.65-0.72) in determining active clinical actions. Conclusion: The partners-HF algorithm proved higher accuracy and sensitivity than care alert in determining active clinical actions oriented to treat impending HF. Future studies in larger populations should evaluate partners-HF ability to improve HF-related clinical outcomeFile | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Calò_Comparison_2015.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
1.01 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.01 MB | Adobe PDF |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.