Objective To determine whether remote monitoring (structured telephone support or telemonitoring) without regular clinic or home visits improves outcomes for patients with chronic heart failure.Data sources 15 electronic databases, hand searches of previous studies, and contact with authors and experts.Data extraction Two investigators independently screened the results.Review methods Published randomised controlled trials comparing remote monitoring programmes with usual care in patients with chronic heart failure managed within the community. Results 14 randomised controlled trials (4264 patients) of remote monitoring met the inclusion criteria: four evaluated telemonitoring, nine evaluated structured telephone support, and one evaluated both. Remote monitoring programmes reduced the rates of admission to hospital for chronic heart failure by 21% (95% confidence interval 11% to 31%) and all cause mortality by 20% (8% to 31%); of the six trials evaluating health related quality of life three reported significant benefits with remote monitoring, and of the four studies examining healthcare costs with structured telephone support three reported reduced cost and one no effect.Conclusion Programmes for chronic heart failure that include remote monitoring have a positive effect on clinical outcomes in community dwelling patients with chronic heart failure.

Aims Telemonitoring (TM) and structured telephone support (STS) have the potential to deliver specialized management to more patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), but their efficacy is still to be proven. The aim of this meta-analysis was to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TM or STS for all-cause mortality and all-cause and CHF-related hospitalizations in patients with CHF, as a non-invasive remote model of a specialized disease-management intervention. Methods and results We searched all relevant electronic databases and search engines, hand-searched bibliographies of relevant studies, systematic reviews, and meeting abstracts. Two reviewers independently extracted all data. Randomized controlled trials comparing TM or STS to usual care in patients with CHF were included. Studies that included intensified management with additional home or clinic-visits were excluded. Primary outcomes (mortality and hospitalizations) were analysed; secondary outcomes (cost, length of stay, and quality of life) were tabulated. Thirty RCTs of STS and TM were identified (25 peer-reviewed publications (n= 8323) and five abstracts (n= 1482)). Of the 25 peer-reviewed studies, 11 evaluated TM (2710 participants), 16 evaluated STS (5613 participants) with two testing both STS and TM in separate intervention arms compared with usual care. Telemonitoring reduced all-cause mortality {risk ratio (RR) 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–0.81], P< 0.0001 }and STS showed a similar, but non-significant trend [RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.76–1.01), P= 0.08]. Both TM [RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.67–0.94), P= 0.008], and STS [RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.68–0.87), P< 0.0001] reduced CHF-related hospitalizations. Both interventions improved quality of life, reduced costs, and were acceptable to patients. Improvements in prescribing, patient-knowledge and self-care, and functional class were observed. Conclusion Telemonitoring and STS both appear effective interventions to improve outcomes in patients with CHF. Systematic Review Number: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2008:Issue 3. Art. No.: CD007228. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007228.

The traditional hospital-based model of cardiac rehabilitation faces substantial challenges, such as cost and accessibility. These challenges have led to the development of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation in recent years. The aim of this study was to identify and critique evidence for the effectiveness of these alternative models. A total of 22 databases were searched to identify quantitative studies or systematic reviews of quantitative studies regarding the effectiveness of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation. Included studies were appraised using a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool and the National Health and Medical Research Council’s designations for Level of Evidence. The 83 included articles described interventions in the following broad categories of alternative models of care: multifactorial individualized telehealth, internet based, telehealth focused on exercise, telehealth focused on recovery, community- or home-based, and complementary therapies. Multifactorial individualized telehealth and community- or home-based cardiac rehabilitation are effective alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation, as they have produced similar reductions in cardiovascular disease risk factors compared with hospital-based programmes. While further research is required to address the paucity of data available regarding the effectiveness of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation in rural, remote, and culturally and linguistically diverse populations, our review indicates there is no need to rely on hospital-based strategies alone to deliver effective cardiac rehabilitation. Local healthcare systems should strive to integrate alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation, such as brief telehealth interventions tailored to individual’s risk factor profiles as well as community- or home-based programmes, in order to ensure there are choices available for patients that best fit their needs, risk factor profile, and preferences.