The role of non-invasive devices for the telemonitoring of heart failure patients.

Heart failure (HF) patients represent one of the most prevalent as well as one of the most fragile population encountered in the cardiology and internal medicine departments nowadays. Estimated to account for around 26 million people worldwide, diagnosed patients present a poor prognosis and quality of life with a clinical history accompanied by repeated hospital admissions caused by an exacerbation of their chronic condition. The frequent hospitalizations and the extended hospital stays mean an extremely high economic burden for healthcare institutions. Meanwhile, the number of chronically diseased and elderly patients is continuously rising, and a lack of specialized physicians is evident. To cope with this health emergency, more efficient strategies for patient management, more accurate diagnostic tools, and more efficient preventive plans are needed. In recent years, telemonitoring has been introduced as the potential answer to solve such needs. Different methodologies and devices have been progressively investigated for effective home monitoring of cardiologic patients. Invasive hemodynamic devices, such as CardioMEMS™, have been demonstrated to be reducing hospitalizations and mortality, but their use is however restricted to limited cases. The role of external non-invasive devices for remote patient monitoring, instead, is yet to be clarified. In this review, we summarized the most relevant studies and devices that, by utilizing non-invasive telemonitoring, demonstrated whether beneficial effects in the management of HF patients were effective.

The Double Sensor-A non-invasive device to continuously monitor core temperature in humans on earth and in space.

The objective of our study was to establish whether rectal temperature recordings in humans could be replaced by a non-invasive skin temperature sensor combined with a heat flux sensor (Double Sensor) located at the forehead to monitor core body temperature changes due to circadian rhythms. Rectal and Double Sensor data were collected continuously for 24h in seven men undertaking strict head-down tilt bed-rest. Individual differences between the two techniques varied between -0.72 and +0.55 degrees C. Nonetheless, when temperature data were approximated by cosinor analysis in order to compare circadian rhythm profiles between methods, it was observed that there were no significant differences between mesor, amplitude, and acrophase (P>0.310). It was therefore concluded that the Double Sensor technology is presently not accurate enough for performing single individual core body temperature measurements under resting conditions at normal ambient room temperature. Yet, it seems to be a valid, non-invasive alternative for monitoring circadian rhythm profiles.