Patient reported experience and adherence to remote patient management in chronic heart failure patients: a posthoc analysis of the TIM-HF2 trial.

AIMS: Remote patient management (RPM) enables early detection and prevention of deterioration in heart failure (HF) patients by measuring vital parameters. The analysis objective is to assess patient reported experience with RPM, adherence to daily measurements, and outline affecting factors both. METHODS AND RESULTS: Telemedical interventional management in-HF2 was conducted in 2013-18 with 1 538 HF patients with a 12-month follow-up. Under guidance of HF nurses, patients had to measure daily weight, blood pressure, electrocardiogram, and self-rated health status. At the end of the study, patients received a programme survey to analyse patient perceptions and satisfaction with telemedicine care and study organization. Adherence was distinguished between measurement of at least one [incomplete adherence (IA)] and all vital parameters [complete adherence (CA)] and defined as ratio of the number of days of measurements taken divided by the number of days of possible measurements. All data and group differences were analysed descriptively (mean ± SD) and by analysis of variance and t-test. Survey response rate was 79.7%. Patients were satisfied with the programme and device usability. CA was 89.1 ± 14.1%, consistently high over the study course and independent of severity of disease (left ventricular ejection fraction, N terminals pro brain natriuretic peptide, New York Heart Association). Lower IA was found with patients <70 years and prior to unplanned cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations (difference by -5.2 ± 20.5%) and after unplanned CV hospitalizations compared with the entire study period (lower by -12.8 ± 24.7%). Patients from rural areas were found to have higher CA than patients from urban regions. CONCLUSIONS: With user-friendly devices, pre-interventional patient training, regular patient contact and close cooperation between primary physicians and telemedical centre, a long-lasting high adherence and satisfaction could be achieved. A change in adherence might detect health deterioration and indicate the need to intensify RPM. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01878630) and Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS00010239).

Mortality and morbidity 1 year after stopping a remote patient management intervention: extended follow-up results from the telemedical interventional management in patients with heart failure II (TIM-HF2) randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The Telemedical Interventional Management in Heart Failure II (TIM-HF2) trial showed that, compared with usual care, a structured remote patient management (RPM) intervention done over 12-months reduced the percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospitalisations and all-cause death. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether this clinical benefit seen for the RPM group during the initial 12 month follow-up of the TIM-HF2 trial would be sustained 1 year after stopping the RPM intervention. METHODS: TIM-HF2 was a prospective, randomised, multicentre trial done in 43 hospitals, 60 cardiology practices, and 87 general practitioners in Germany. Patients with heart failure, New York Heart Association functional class II or III, and who had been hospitalised for heart failure within 12 months before randomisation were randomly assigned to either the RPM intervention or usual care. At the final study visit (main trial), the RPM intervention was stopped and the 1 year extended follow-up period started, which lasted 1 year. The primary outcome was percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospitalisations and all-cause mortality. Analyses were done using the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01878630. FINDINGS: Between Aug 13, 2013, and May 12, 2017, 1538 patients were enrolled (765 to the remote patient management group and 773 to the usual care group) in the main trial. 671 of 765 patients in the remote patient management group and 673 of 773 in the usual care group completed the main trial and started the extended follow-up period up to 1 year later. In the extended follow-up period, the percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions and all-cause mortality did not differ significantly between groups weighted mean 5·95% [95% CI 4·59-7·31] in the RPM group vs 6·64% [95% CI 5·19-8·08] in the usual care group [rate ratio 0·79; 95% CI 0·78-1·21]). However, when data from the main trial and the extended follow-up period were combined, the percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospitalisation or all-cause death was significantly less in patients allocated to the RPM group (382 [50%] of 765; weighted mean 9·28%; 95% CI 7·76-10·81) than in the UC group (398 [51%] of 773; 11·78%; 95% CI 10·08-13·49; ratio of weighted average 0·79; 95% CI 0·62-1·00; p=0·0486). INTERPRETATION: The positive effect of our RPM intervention on morbidity and mortality over the course of the main trial was no longer observed 1 year after stopping the RPM intervention. However, because the TIM-HF2 trial was not powered to show significance during the extended follow-up period, our results are exploratory and require further research. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation benefit from remote patient management: insights from the TIM-HF2 trial.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a frequent comorbidity in patients with heart failure (HF). HF patients with AF are characterized by high morbidity and increased risk of hospitalizations. We assessed the effects of remote patient management (RPM) in HF patients with AF compared with usual care (UC) in the TIM-HF2 trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: For this post-hoc analysis, AF status at randomization was assessed in 1537 patients with HF. The primary outcome was the percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions or death of any cause. Around 966 patients had sinus rhythm (SR) and 571 had AF. The analysis showed a significant interaction between heart rhythm and all-cause mortality (P for interaction = 0.001). AF patients had more days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization than SR patients (7.53%, CI 6.01-9.05 vs. 4.90%, CI 3.98-5.82, ratio 1.54, P = 0.004) and higher all-cause mortality (11.9%, CI 9.4-14.9 vs. 8.5%, CI 6.8-10.4, HR 0.66, CI 0.47-0.94, P = 0.029). Patients with AF randomized to RPM had significantly less days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions or all-cause death (5.64%, CI 3.81-7.48) than patients with AF randomized to UC (9.37%, CI 6.98-11.76, ratio 0.60, P = 0.015). No difference was seen in SR patients (UC: 5.25%, CI 3.93-6.58, RPM: 4.55%, CI 3.27-5.83, ratio 0.87, P = 0.452). All-cause mortality in AF patients was reduced with 9.2% (CI 6.1-13.2) in the RPM group compared with 14.5% (CI 10.7-18.1) in the UC group (HR 0.60, CI 0.36-1.00, P = 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with atrial fibrillation at study entry, RPM was associated with increased days alive out of hospital. Our results identify HF patients with atrial fibrillation as a promising target population for RPM.

Biomarker guidance allows a more personalized allocation of patients for remote patient management in heart failure: results from the TIM-HF2 trial.

AIMS: The TIM-HF2 study showed less days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization or all-cause death and improved survival in patients randomly assigned to remote patient management (RPM) instead of standard of care. METHODS AND RESULTS: This substudy explored whether the biomarkers mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) could be used to identify low-risk patients unlikely to benefit from RPM, thereby allowing more efficient allocation of the intervention. For 1538 patients of the trial (median age 73 years, interquartile range 64-78 years, 30% female), baseline biomarkers were used to select subpopulations recommended for RPM with various safety endpoints (100%, 98%, 95% sensitivity), and efficacy of RPM was assessed. Both biomarkers were strongly associated with events. The primary endpoint of lost days increased from 1.0% (1.4%) in the lowest to 17.3% (17.6%) in the highest quintile of NT-proBNP (MR-proADM). After combining biomarkers to identify patients recommended for RPM with 95% sensitivity, in the most efficient scenario (excluding 27% of patients; NT-proBNP < 413.7 pg/mL and MR-proADM < 0.75 nmol/L), the effect of RPM on patients was highly similar to the original trial (ratio of lost days: 0.78, hazard ratio for all-cause death: 0.68). Number needed to treat for all-cause death was lowered from 28 to 21. Rates of emergencies and telemedical efforts were significantly lower among patients not recommended for RPM. Biomarker guidance would have saved about 150 h effort/year per 100 patients of the eligible population. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of MR-proADM and NT-proBNP may allow safe, more precise, effective and cost-saving allocation of patients with heart failure to RPM and warrants further prospective studies.