ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2015
Comparison of partners-heart failure algorithm vs care alert in remote heart failure management.
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the utility of the partners-heart failure (HF) algorithm with the care alert strategy for remote monitoring, in guiding clinical actions oriented to treat impending HF.
methodsConsecutive cardiac resynchronization-defibrillator recipients were followed with biweekly automatic transmissions. After every transmission, patients received a phone contact in order to check their health status, eventually followed by clinical actions, classified as "no-action", "non-active" and "active". Active clinical actions were oriented to treat impending HF. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy of the partners-HF algorithm vs care alert in determining active clinical actions oriented to treat pre-HF status and to prevent an acute decompensation, were also calculated.
resultsThe study population included 70 patients with moderate to advanced systolic HF and QRS duration longer than 120 ms. During a mean follow-up of 8 ± 2 mo, 665 transmissions were collected. No deaths or HF hospitalizations occurred. The sensitivity and specificity of the partners-HF algorithm for active clinical actions oriented to treat impending HF were 96.9% (95%CI: 0.96-0.98) and 92.5% (95%CI: 0.90-0.94) respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 84.6% (95%CI: 0.82-0.87) and 98.6% (95%CI: 0.98-0.99) respectively. The partners-HF algorithm had an accuracy of 93.8% (95%CI: 0.92-0.96) in determining active clinical actions. With regard to active clinical actions, care alert had a sensitivity and specificity of 11.05% (95%CI: 0.09-0.13) and 93.6% respectively (95%CI: 0.92-0.95). The positive predictive value was 42.3% (95%CI: 0.38-0.46); the negative predictive value was 71.1% (95%CI: 0.68-0.74). Care alert had an accuracy of 68.9% (95%CI: 0.65-0.72) in determining active clinical actions.
conclusionThe partners-HF algorithm proved higher accuracy and sensitivity than care alert in determining active clinical actions oriented to treat impending HF. Future studies in larger populations should evaluate partners-HF ability to improve HF-related clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.