Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36054801›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of heart failure2022

Device-based remote monitoring strategies for congestion-guided management of patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Andrea Zito, Giuseppe Princi, Giulio Francesco Romiti, Mattia Galli, Stefania Basili, Giovanna Liuzzo, Tommaso Sanna, Attilio Restivo, Giuseppe Ciliberti, Carlo Trani and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of heart failure, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 2024 update in heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Chances and challenges of questionnaires in heart failure care.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Andrea ZitoDepartment of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe PrinciDepartment of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Giulio Francesco RomitiDepartment of Translational and Precision Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Mattia GalliDepartment of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Stefania BasiliDepartment of Translational and Precision Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giovanna LiuzzoDepartment of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Tommaso SannaDepartment of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Attilio RestivoDepartment of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe CilibertiDepartment of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Carlo TraniDepartment of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Francesco BurzottaDepartment of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Alfredo CesarioOpen Innovation Unit, Scientific Directorate, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Gianluigi SavareseDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Filippo CreaDepartment of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Domenico D'AmarioDepartment of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
University of the Sacred Heart · JPAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITKarolinska Institutet · SEMaria Cecilia Hospital · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsPre-clinical congestion markers of worsening heart failure (HF) can be monitored by devices and may support the management of patients with HF. We aimed to assess whether congestion-guided HF management according to device-based remote monitoring strategies is more effective than standard therapy. METHODS AND

resultsA comprehensive literature research for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing device-based remote monitoring strategies for congestion-guided HF management versus standard therapy was performed on PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Poisson regression model with random study effects. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalizations. Secondary endpoints included the individual components of the primary outcome. A total of 4347 patients from eight RCTs were included. Findings varied according to the type of parameters monitored. Compared with standard therapy, haemodynamic-guided strategy (4 trials, 2224 patients, 12-month follow-up) reduced the risk of the primary composite outcome (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.89) and HF hospitalizations (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86), without a significant impact on all-cause death (IRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72-1.21). In contrast, impedance-guided strategy (4 trials, 2123 patients, 19-month follow-up) did not provide significant benefits.

conclusionHaemodynamic-guided HF management is associated with better clinical outcomes as compared to standard clinical care.

Indexed as

Heart FailureBiomarkersHospitalizationHumansBiomarkersDeathGuided managementHeart failureHospitalizationRemote monitoringTelemonitoring

Identifiers

PMID36054801
PMCPMC10086988
OpenAlexW4292852419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.