Cardiovascular
Phone telemonitoring after heart-failure flare
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Home mobile-phone telemonitoring after acute heart-failure decompensation cut primary events and hospital days versus usual care.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Multiple studies in this library examine cardiovascular care with empirical patient or population outcomes rather than opinion alone.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
ITT primary events 17% tele vs 33% control (RRR 50%, P=.06); per-protocol RRR 54% (P=.04); NYHA improved only in tele group; HF hospital stays shorter (median 6.5 vs 10 days).
Evidence for the claim as stated.
In HYVET, frailty did not cancel the stroke and CV benefit of antihypertensive treatment at age 80+.
In 2,656 HYVET participants aged 80+, median frailty index was 0.17. Indapamide±perindopril still cut fatal/non-fatal stroke (HR 0.64) and CV events (HR 0.59); FI×treatment interaction p-values were 0.52, 0.73, and 0.61.
Scope note — post-discharge HF telemonitoring RCT ≠ very-elderly hypertension × frailty interaction
Limits the claim's scope: a different population, assay, or outcome.
Effect sizes and settings differ across cardiovascular care studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
MOBITEL randomised 120 patients after acute heart-failure decompensation to phone telemonitoring versus control. ITT primary events were 17% versus 33% (relative risk reduction 50%, P=.06); per-protocol RRR was 54% (P=.04). NYHA class improved only in the tele group, and HF hospital stays were shorter (median 6.5 versus 10 days). Some patients were 'never beginners' unable to use the equipment — exactly the people ITT keeps in the denominator.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
ITT and per-protocol can disagree on whether a result 'counts.' MOBITEL's primary ITT contrast was P=.06 while per-protocol reached P=.04; the propofol–sevoflurane trial was null on both. Quoting only the significant per-protocol RRR in MOBITEL, or reading the anaesthetic HR near 1 as proven equivalence, treats two different estimands as if they were one.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Effect sizes and settings differ across cardiovascular care studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
- Supports · How much dementia could prevention still avert?
- Supports · COVID-19 death risk and comorbidities
ITT and per-protocol can disagree on whether a result 'counts.' MOBITEL's primary ITT contrast was P=.06 while per-protocol reached P=.04; the propofol–sevoflurane trial was null on both. Quoting only the significant per-protocol RRR in MOBITEL, or reading the anaesthetic HR near 1 as proven equivalence, treats two different estimands as if they were one.
History
When this study was placed
Dated entries from the concept change log — when this paper was added or removed as support, challenge, or qualifier on a claim.
Placed as a scope qualifier on Cardiovascular Care
In 2,656 HYVET participants aged 80+, median frailty index was 0.17. Indapamide±perindopril still cut fatal/non-fatal stroke (HR 0.64) and CV events (HR 0.59); FI×treatment interaction p-values were 0.52, 0.73, and 0.61.
Study at a glance
- Design
- RCT — MOBITEL multicentre RCT; home telemonitoring via mobile phones vs control
- N
- N=120 · Stopped early at 120 of a planned 240 (eight centres; median age 66); many patients could not operate the phone
- Population
- Adults after acute heart-failure decompensation
- Outcome
- Cardiovascular death or HF re-hospitalisation over 6 months
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Inspect source passages
Phone telemonitoring after heart-failure flare
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
ITT primary events 17% tele vs 33% control (RRR 50%).
Intention-to-treat analysis indicated that 18 control group patients (33%) reached the primary endpoint (1 death, 17 hospitalizations) compared with 11 tele group patients (17%, 0 deaths, 11 hospitalizations; relative risk reduction 50%, 95% CI 3-74%, P = .06; a).
120 patients were randomized.
Overall, 120 patients (85 male, 35 female) with a median age of 66 years (IQR 62-72) were randomized in eight centers: 54 patients were randomized to the control group (39 m
Key findings
ITT primary events 17% tele vs 33% control (RRR 50%, P=.06); per-protocol RRR 54% (P=.04); NYHA improved only in tele group; HF hospital stays shorter (median 6.5 vs 10 days).
Methodology
MOBITEL randomized 120 patients after acute decompensation to home telemonitoring via mobile phones versus control across eight centres, following primary death/HF hospitalization endpoints for 6 months.
Limitations
Whether modern smartphones change effect sizes, and some patients were “never beginners” unable to use equipment.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.