Comprehensive vs. standard remote monitoring of cardiac resynchronization devices in heart failure patients: results of the ECOST-CRT study

Le résumé fourni par la source

AIMS: Integrating remote monitoring (RM) into existing healthcare practice for heart failure (HF) patients to improve clinical outcome remains challenging. The ECOST-CRT study compared the clinical outcome of a comprehensive RM scheme including a patient questionnaire capturing signs and symptoms of HF and notifications for HF specific parameters to traditional RM in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to standard daily RM (notification for technical parameters and ventricular arrhythmias; control group) or comprehensive RM (adding a monthly symptom questionnaire and notifications for biventricular pacing, premature ventricular contraction, atrial arrhythmias; active group). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality or hospitalization for worsening HF (WHF). Six hundred fifty-two patients (70.4 ± 10.3 years, 73% men, left ventricular ejection fraction 29.1 ± 7.6%, 68% CRT-Defibrillators, 32% CRT-Pacemakers) were enrolled. The COVID-19 pandemic caused an early termination of the study, so the mean follow-up duration was 18 ± 8 months. No statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint was found between the groups [59 (18.3%) control vs. 77 (23.3%) active group; log-rank test P = 0.13]. Among the secondary endpoints, the MLHF questionnaire showed a larger share of patients with improvement of quality of life compared to baseline in the active group (78%) vs. control (61%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The study does not support the notion that comprehensive RM, when compared to standard RM, in HF patients with CRT improves the clinical outcome of all-cause mortality or WHF hospitalizations. However, this study was underpowered due to an early termination and further trials are required. REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT03012490.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.