Table 1.

Study characteristics of select telehealth and gerontechnology interventions

Article	Study design and duration	Sample size	Mean age (years)	Population	Monitored parameters	Primary and secondary endpoints	Results
Chaudhry [30] Chaudhry [28••] Tele-HF USA	RCT, multicenter (2006–2009) 24 mon, 6 month follow-up	N = 1653 (IG: 826, CG: 827)	IG: 61 CG: 61	Patients with an HF hospitalization with previous month	IG: telephone-based interactive voice response that collected daily information about symptoms and weight CG: usual care	Primary: death/readmission within 180 days, Secondary: hospitalization or death, LOS, number of hospitalizations	No differences in primary or secondary endpoints
Koehler [31] Germany	RCT, multicenter, 24-month follow-up	N = 710 (IG: 354, CG: 356)	IG: 67 CG: 67	Stable chronic HF patients	IG: remote monitoring of ECG, blood pressure, body weight CG: usual care	Primary: CV mortality Secondary: composite (CV mortality/HF admission), HF-admissions, LOS, NYHA class, QOL and depression	Improved physical function in IG, no difference between groups in all-cause mortality, CV mortality, HF-admissions, LOS, NYHA class or composite (CV mortality/HF admission)
Ong [29••] BEAT-HF USA	RCT (2011–2013) 6-month follow-up	N = 1437 IG: 715 CG: 722	IG: 73 CG: 74	Hospitalized patients with HF	IG: 1) predischarge HF education, 2) telephone coaching, and 3) home telemonitoring of weight, blood pressure, heart rate and symptoms CG: usual care	Primary: All-cause readmission within 180 days Secondary: All-cause readmission within 30 days, All-cause mortality, QOL	No differences in All-cause 180- or 30-day readmission, 180-day mortality, Improved QOL at 180 days in intervention group
Piotrowicz [32], Poland	RCT, single center 8 weeks follow-up	N = 152 (IG: 77, CG: 75)	IG: 56, CG: 61	Hospitalized patients with HF with NYHA class II or III	IG: home-based remote monitored cardiac rehab; patient edu, psych support CG: standard cardiac rehab, patient edu, psych support	Primary: NYHA class, QOL, peak VO2, 6 MWT	Greater improvement in NYHA class in IG, Greater improvement in 6 MWT in CG, No difference between groups in exercise duration, peak VO2 and QOL
Scherr et al. [33] Austria	RCT, 6 mon follow-up	N = 120 (IG: 66, CG: 54)	IG: 66, CG: 67	Heart failure patient with acute worsening and hospital admission lasting > 24 h	IG: Remote automated monitoring of BP, body weight, pharmacological treatment CG: pharmacological treatment	Primary: hospitalization for worsening HF or death from cardiovascular cause Secondary: LOS, NYHA class, LVEF, Composite (CV mortality/HF admission)	Shorter LOS in IG, median improved in NYHA from III to II in IG group only, no difference between groups in other outcomes
Seto et al. [34] Canada	RCT, single center, 6 mon follow-up	N = 100 (IG: 50, CG: 50)	IG: 55, CG: 52	Ambulatory patients with heart failure	IG: remote monitoring of ECG, blood pressure, body weight; standard care CG: standard care	Primary: BNP, self-care, QOL Secondary: number of ER visits, LVEF, NYHA class, medication prescriptions, blood test results	No difference between groups except for overall QOL

Abbreviations: BNP brain natriuretic peptide, CG control group, CV cardiovascular, ECG electrocardiogram, ER emergency room, HF heart failure, IG intervention group, LOS length of stay, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, NYHA New York Heart Association functional class, peak VO₂ peak oxygen consumption, QOL quality of life, RCT randomized controlled trial, 6 MWT 6-min walk test