Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Trials of implantable monitoring devices in heart failure: which design is optimal?

Nature Reviews Cardiology volume 11, pages 576–585 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Key Points

  • Remote monitoring devices can detect early clinical decompensation of heart failure and possibly lead to improved patient outcomes, but this hypothesis is not yet supported by clinical trial data

  • Applying the rigorous methodology typical of clinical trials for therapeutic drugs and devices to establish the safety and effectiveness of diagnostic devices brings challenges that affect interpretation of completed trials

  • Bias and the extent to which protocols should mandate treatment in response to remote monitoring data are major challenges facing clinical research of remote monitoring devices

  • Blind adjudication of objective primary end points, identical follow-up between groups, and consistent guideline-directed treatment recommendations might help to mitigate challenges in future trials

Abstract

Implantable monitoring devices have been developed to detect early evidence of heart failure (HF) decompensation, with the hypothesis that early detection might enable clinicians to commence therapy sooner than would otherwise be possible, and potentially to reduce the rate of hospitalization. In addition to the usual challenges inherent to device trials (such as the difficulty of double-blinding and potential for bias), studies of implantable monitoring devices present unique difficulties because they involve assessment of therapeutic end points for diagnostic devices. Problems include the lack of uniform approaches to treatment in study protocols for device alerts or out-of-range values, and the requirement of levels of evidence traditionally associated with therapeutic devices to establish effectiveness and safety. In this Review, the approaches used to deal with these issues are discussed, including the use of objective primary end points with blinded adjudication, identical duration of follow-up and number of encounters for patients in active monitoring and control groups, and treatment recommendations between groups that are consistent with international guidelines. Remote monitoring devices hold promise for reducing the rate of hospitalization among patients with HF. However, optimization of regulatory approaches and clinical trial design is needed to facilitate further evaluation of the effectiveness of combining health information technology and medical devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Cardiac remote monitoring systems.
Figure 2: Advantages of remote monitoring systems.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Go, A. S. et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 129, e28–e292 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cowie, M. R. et al. Hospitalization of patients with heart failure: a population-based study. Eur. Heart J. 23, 877–885 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tavazzi, L. et al. Multicenter prospective observational study on acute and chronic heart failure: one-year follow-up results of IN-HF (Italian Network on Heart Failure) outcome registry. Circ. Heart Fail. 6, 473–481 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Blecker, S., Paul, M., Taksler, G., Ogedegbe, G. & Katz, S. Heart failure-associated hospitalizations in the United States. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 61, 1259–1267 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jencks, S. F., Williams, M. V. & Coleman, E. A. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 1418–1428 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ross, J. S. et al. Recent national trends in readmission rates after heart failure hospitalization. Circ. Heart Fail. 3, 97–103 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Acosta-Lobos, A., Riley, J. P. & Cowie, M. R. Current and future technologies for remote monitoring in cardiology and evidence from trial data. Future Cardiol. 8, 425–437 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cowie, M. R. et al. Development and validation of an integrated diagnostic algorithm derived from parameters monitored in implantable devices for identifying patients at risk for heart failure hospitalization in an ambulatory setting. Eur. Heart J. 34, 2472–2480 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dubner, S. et al. ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Europace 14, 278–293 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith, S. A. & Abraham, W. T. Implantable cardiovascular sensors and computers: interventional heart failure strategies. Curr. Cardiol. Rep. 14, 611–618 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. von Lueder, T. G. & Krum, H. Current modalities for invasive and non-invasive monitoring of volume status in heart failure. Heart 98, 967–973 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Adamson, P. B. et al. Continuous hemodynamic monitoring in patients with mild to moderate heart failure: results of the Reducing Decompensation Events Utilizing Intracardiac Pressures in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure (REDUCEhf) trial. Congest. Heart Fail. 17, 248–254 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van Veldhuisen, D. J. et al. Intrathoracic impedance monitoring, audible patient alerts, and outcome in patients with heart failure. Circulation 124, 1719–1726 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Abraham, W. T. et al. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 377, 658–666 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McMurray, J. J. et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur. Heart J. 33, 1787–1847 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bourge, R. C. et al. Randomized controlled trial of an implantable continuous hemodynamic monitor in patients with advanced heart failure: the COMPASS-HF study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 51, 1073–1079 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hunt, S. A. et al. 2009 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 guidelines for the diagnosis and management of heart failure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 53, e1–e90 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Loh, J. P., Barbash, I. M. & Waksman, R. Overview of the 2011 Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee Meeting on the CardioMEMS Champion Heart Failure Monitoring System. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 61, 1571–1576 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zile, M. R. et al. Transition from chronic compensated to acute decompensated heart failure: pathophysiological insights obtained from continuous monitoring of intracardiac pressures. Circulation 118, 1433–1441 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Anker, S. D., Koehler, F. & Abraham, W. T. Telemedicine and remote management of patients with heart failure. Lancet 378, 731–739 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Udelson, J. E. T.M.I. (too much information)? Circulation 124, 1697–1699 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Landolina, M. et al. Remote monitoring reduces healthcare use and improves quality of care in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: the evolution of management strategies of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (EVOLVO) study. Circulation 125, 2985–2992 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. O'Neil, W. M., Welner, S. A. & Lip, G. Y. Do open label blinded outcome studies of novel anticoagulants versus warfarin have equivalent validity to those carried out under double-blind conditions? Thromb. Haemost. 109, 497–503 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tavazzi, L., Maggioni, A. P. & Borer, J. S. Should we revise our approach to 'optimal medical therapy'? The case of chronic heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 34, 2792–2794 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Abraham, W. T. Disease management: remote monitoring in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators, resynchronization devices, and haemodynamic monitors. Europace 15 (Suppl. 1), i40–i46 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Koehler, F. et al. Impact of remote telemedical management on mortality and hospitalizations in ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure: the telemedical interventional monitoring in heart failure study. Circulation 123, 1873–1880 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jehn, M. et al. Tele-accelerometry as a novel technique for assessing functional status in patients with heart failure: feasibility, reliability and patient safety. Int. J. Cardiol. 168, 4723–4728 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van Veldhuisen, D. J. & Maass, A. H. Telemonitoring of outpatients with heart failure: a search for the Holy Grail? Circulation 125, 2965–2967 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lewin, J., Ledwidge, M., O'Loughlin, C., McNally, C. & McDonald, K. Clinical deterioration in established heart failure: what is the value of BNP and weight gain in aiding diagnosis? Eur. J. Heart Fail. 7, 953–957 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang, J., Goode, K. M., Cuddihy, P. E. & Cleland, J. G. Predicting hospitalization due to worsening heart failure using daily weight measurement: analysis of the Trans-European Network-Home-Care Management System (TEN-HMS) study. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 11, 420–427 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Abraham, W. T. et al. Intrathoracic impedance vs daily weight monitoring for predicting worsening heart failure events: results of the Fluid Accumulation Status Trial (FAST). Congest. Heart Fail. 17, 51–55 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Whellan, D. J. et al. Combined heart failure device diagnostics identify patients at higher risk of subsequent heart failure hospitalizations: results from PARTNERS HF (Program to Access and Review Trending Information and Evaluate Correlation to Symptoms in Patients With Heart Failure) study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55, 1803–1810 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Joynt, K. E. & Jha, A. K. A path forward on Medicare readmissions. N. Engl. J. Med. 368, 1175–1177 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pocock, S. J., Ariti, C. A., Collier, T. J. & Wang, D. The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities. Eur. Heart J. 33, 176–182 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cleland, J. G. et al. Noninvasive home telemonitoring for patients with heart failure at high risk of recurrent admission and death: the Trans-European Network-Home-Care Management System (TEN-HMS) study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 45, 1654–1664 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Conraads, V. M. et al. Sensitivity and positive predictive value of implantable intrathoracic impedance monitoring as a predictor of heart failure hospitalizations: the SENSE-HF trial. Eur. Heart J. 32, 2266–2273 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Brachmann, J. et al. Fluid status monitoring with a wireless network to reduce cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and mortality in heart failure: rationale and design of the OptiLink HF Study (Optimization of Heart Failure Management using OptiVol Fluid Status Monitoring and CareLink). Eur. J. Heart Fail. 13, 796–804 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Burri, H. et al. The MOnitoring Resynchronization dEvices and CARdiac patiEnts (MORE-CARE) study: rationale and design. Am. Heart J. 160, 42–48 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hindricks, G. IN-TIME study: the influence of implant-based home monitoring on the clinical management of heart failure patients with an impaired left ventricular function. Presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2013.

  40. Arya, A. et al. Influence of Home Monitoring on the clinical status of heart failure patients: Design and rationale of the IN-TIME study. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 10, 1143–1148 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov [online], (2014).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was generated from discussions during the 9th Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists (CVCT) Forum held in Paris, France in December 2012. CVCT was organized by the Clinical Investigation Centre INSERM, CHU, and University Henri Poincaré of Nancy, France and funded by an unrestricted educational grant from Association de Recherche et d'Information en Cardiologie (ARISC), a nonprofit educational organization, in Nancy, France. ARISC had no involvement in the preparation, review, or approval of this manuscript for publication. The following individuals were panellists discussing the topic of this manuscript at the 9th Global CVCT Forum: T. Shipman (St. Jude Medical, Inc., MN, USA) D. Brutsaert (University of Antwerp, Belgium), R. Cody (Johnson & Johnson, Inc., NJ, USA), and B. Swynghedauw (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale [INSERM], France).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Ohio State University, 244 Davis Heart & Lung Research Institute, 473 West 12th Avenue, Columbus, 43210, OH, USA

    William T. Abraham

  2. Campbell University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 143 Main Street, Buies Creek, 27506, NC, USA

    Wendy G. Stough

  3. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Centre, 111 East 210th Street, NY, 10467, Bronx, USA

    Ileana L. Piña

  4. Department of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, 171 76 Solna, Stockholm, Sweden

    Cecilia Linde

  5. The Howard Gilman Institute, State University of New York Downstate Medical Centre, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, 11203, NY, USA

    Jeffrey S. Borer

  6. Department of Cardiology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Viale Camillo Golgi, 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy

    Gaetano M. De Ferrari

  7. Zena and Michael A. Weiner Cardiovascular, Mount Sinai Medical Centre, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, 10029, NY, USA

    Roxana Mehran

  8. Boston Scientific Corporation, 4100 Hamline Avenue North, St. Paul, 55112–5798, MN, USA

    Kenneth M. Stein

  9. Medtronic, Route du Molliau 31, 1131 Tolochenaz, Switzerland

    Alphons Vincent

  10. CardioMEMS, 387 Technology Circle Northwest #500, Atlanta, 30313, GA, USA

    Jay S. Yadav

  11. Department of Cardiology, Centre for Applied Cachexia Research, Charité Medical School, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, University Medical Center Göttingen, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany

    Stefan D. Anker

  12. INSERM, Centre d'Investigation Clinique 9501 and Unité 961, 34 Cours Léopold, 54000, Nancy, France

    Faiez Zannad

Authors
  1. William T. Abraham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wendy G. Stough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ileana L. Piña
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cecilia Linde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeffrey S. Borer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gaetano M. De Ferrari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Roxana Mehran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kenneth M. Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alphons Vincent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jay S. Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Stefan D. Anker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Faiez Zannad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

W.T.A., W.G.S., I.P., J.S.B., G.M.D.F., S.D.A., and F.Z. researched the data for the article; W.T.A., W.G.S., I.P., C.L., J.S.B., G.M.D.F., and F.Z. wrote the article; all the authors contributed substantially to the discussion, editing, and review of the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Faiez Zannad.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

W.T.A. has acted as an advisor or consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Cardiokinetix, CardioMEMS, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, Respicardia, and Sunshine Heart. W.G.S. has acted as a consultant for Medtronic and has received financial travel support from INSERM. I.L.P. has acted as a consultant for and received salary support from the FDA. C.L. has acted as a consultant for and received speaker's fees and grants from Cardiomems, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, and Respicardia. J.S.B. has acted as a consultant, committee member, advisory board member, and speaker for ARMGO, Biotronik, Cardiorentis, Cardioxyl, Celladon, JenaValve, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. G.M.D.F. has acted as a committee member, advisory board member, and speaker for Amgen, Boston Scientific, and Merck. R.M. has received research grants, and has acted as a consultant and advisory board member for Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Covidien, CSL Behring, Lilly/Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Maya Medical, Merck, Regado Biosciences, Sanofi-Aventis, and The Medicines Company. K.S. is a shareholder in Boston Scientific. A.V. is a shareholder in Medtronic. J.S.Y. is a shareholder in CardioMEMS. S.D.A. has acted as a consultant, committee member, and advisory board member for BioVentrix, Bosch GmbH, CardioMems, Impulse Dynamics, Lonestar, and Medical Sensible. F.Z. has acted as committee member, founder, consultant, or advisory board member at Bayer, Boston Scientific, CardioMEMS, CardioRenal Diagnostics, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Resmed, Servier, St. Jude Medical, and Takeda.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abraham, W., Stough, W., Piña, I. et al. Trials of implantable monitoring devices in heart failure: which design is optimal?. Nat Rev Cardiol 11, 576–585 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2014.114

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2014.114

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing