Table 2.

Summary of different heart failure telemedicine studies.

Study	Design	Assessed device/technique	Number of patients	End-points	Results
HFHC Soran et al. (23)	Randomized, controlled trial Multicentre	Alere Day Link HF Monitoring System (non-invasive device)	315	Treatment failure (rehospitalizations + cardiovascular deaths at 6 months)	No significant statistical differences
Kulshreshtha et al. (24)	Randomized, controlled trial	Remote monitoring equipment (symptoms, weight)	150	Primary: All-cause rehospitalizations Secondary: HF rehospitalizations, mortality, ER visits	No significant statistical differences
TELE-HF Chaudhry et al. (25)	Randomized, controlled trial	Telemonitoring of symptoms	1,653	Readmission + Death of any cause	No significant statistical differences
WISH Lynga et al. (26)	Randomized, controlled trial	Weight monitoring: automatically transmitted vs telephone messaging	344	Primary: Cardiac rehospitalization Secondary: Death from any cause, rehospitalization from any cause	No significant statistical differences
CHAMPION Abraham et al. (13)	Prospective, single blind trial, NYHA class III HF	Wireless monitoring of pulmonary artery pressures with CardioMEMS heart sensor	550	Rate of hospital admissions	Positive
TIM-HF Koehler et al. (27)	Randomized, controlled trial	Telemonitoring of weight, ECG, blood pressure	710	Death of any cause	No significant statistical differences
INH Angerman et al. (28)	Randomized, controlled trial	Telephone based monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate, symptoms Remote medication adjustments	715	Time to death or rehospitalizations	No significant statistical differences
CHAT Krum et al. (29)	Randomized, controlled trial	Telewatch system (symptoms assessment through questionnaires) + follow-up by nurses	405	Primary: Packer clinical composite score Secondary: rehospitalizations, deaths of any cause	No significant statistical differences
IN-TIME Hindricks et al. (30)	Randomized, controlled trial	Daily, multiparameter telemonitoring based on the ICD/CRT-D	664	Composite clinical score (including all-cause deaths and overnight hospital admission)	Positive
Blum et al. (31)	Randomized, controlled trial	Remote monitoring of symptoms, blood pressure, heart rate	204	Primary: Readmissions in the first month Secondary: all-cause hospitalisations, costs, mortality	Positive only for the primary end-point
EFFECT De Simone et al. (32)	Prospective, non-randomized	ICD telemonitoring	987	Mortality and rehospitalizations	Positive
OPTI-LINK HF Bohm et al. (33)	Randomized, controlled trial	ICD telemonitoring; Fluid status alert	1,002	Composite of deaths of any cause and cardiovascular rehospitalizations	No significant statistical differences
COMMIT-HF Kurek et al. (34)	Observational prospective cohort study	Daily ICD/CRT-D telemonitoring	822	Long term all-cause mortality	Positive
TIM-HF 2 Koehler et al. (35)	Randomized, controlled trial	Telemonitoring of symptoms, weight, blood pressure, heart rate	1,571	All-cause deaths or percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiac readmissions	Positive
BeAT-HF Zile et al. (36)	Randomized, prospective, multicentre, controlled trial In patients with HFrEF	Baroreflex activation therapy with BAROSTIM NEO system (electrode placed on the carotid sinus connected to a subcutaneous pulse generator)	408	Changes from baseline in 6 months for quality of life score, 6-min walk test, NT-proBNP levels	Positive
Bowers et al. (37)	Randomized, prospective, controlled trial in patients with HFrEF	Active telemonitoring (symptoms, weight)	209	Primary: mortality rate Secondary: prescription of evidence based HF medication	No significant statistical differences
Ploux et al. (38)	Observational retrospective cohort study (one month before vs after the first French lockdown)	Multiparametric remote monitoring system (weight, blood pressure, heart rate, symptoms)	53	Medical contact index (cardiological/overall)	Decreased medical contact index after lockdown