ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2023
Cost-effectiveness of a telemonitoring programme in patients with cardiovascular diseases compared with standard of care.
Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying and Comparing Intervention Cost Components in Remote Patient Monitoring: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Structuring telemonitoring in heart failure care in The Netherlands: design and operational protocol of a nationwide initiative.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Economic Evaluation Methodologies of Remote Patient Monitoring for Chronic Conditions: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Implantable cardiac monitor in heart failure: just a toy or a useful tool?European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
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
objectivesThe main aim of this work was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of an integrated care concept (NICC) that combines telemonitoring with the support of a care centre in addition to guideline therapy for patients. Secondary aims were to compare health utility and health-related quality of life (QoL) between NICC and standard of care (SoC).
methodsThe randomised controlled CardioCare MV Trial compared NICC and SoC in patients from Mecklenburg-West Pomerania (Germany) with atrial fibrillation, heart failure or treatment-resistant hypertension. QoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L at baseline, 6 months and 1 year follow-up. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), EQ5D utility scores, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Scores and VAS adjusted life years (VAS-AL) were calculated. Cost data were obtained from health insurance companies, and the payer perspective was taken in health economic analyses. Quantile regression was used with adjustments for stratification variables.
resultsThe net benefit of NICC (QALY) was 0.031 (95% CI 0.012 to 0.050; p=0.001) in this trial involving 957 patients. EQ5D Index values, VAS-ALs and VAS were larger for NICC compared with SoC at 1 year follow-up (all p≤0.004). Direct cost per patient and year were €323 (CI €157 to €489) lower in the NICC group. When 2000 patients are served by the care centre, NICC is cost-effective if one is willing to pay €10 652 per QALY per year.
conclusionNICC was associated with higher QoL and health utility. The programme is cost-effective if one is willing to pay approximately €11 000 per QALY per year.
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.