Letter to the editor to update the article “Remote monitoring for heart failure using implantable devices: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials”

6Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Our recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of heart failure (HF) remote monitoring using implantable devices (Hajduczok et al. in HF Reviews 1–20, 1) has been updated to reflected new data from the GUIDE-HF trial (Lindenfeld et al. in Lancet 398(10304):991-1001, 2). Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed to determine the effectiveness of implantable remote monitoring on the improvement of outcomes in HF patients. With the inclusion of the data from 1000 patients followed for 12 months in GUIDE-HF, our conclusions remain unchanged: Compared to standard of care, remote monitoring using implantable devices did not reduce mortality, CV, or HF hospitalizations. However, right ventricular/pulmonary pressure monitoring may reduce HF hospitalizations.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hajduczok, A. G., Muallem, S. N., Nudy, M. S., DeWaters, A. L., & Boehmer, J. P. (2022, May 1). Letter to the editor to update the article “Remote monitoring for heart failure using implantable devices: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials.” Heart Failure Reviews. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10741-021-10190-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free