Algorithm-based remote monitoring of heart failure risk data in people with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Heart failure is a clinical syndrome caused by any structural or functional cardiac disorder that impairs the heart's ability to function efficiently and pump blood around the body. Function can also be monitored using cardiac implantable electronic devices, some of which may also deliver a therapeutic benefit (e.g. pacemakers), while others only monitor metrics over time. Implantable devices can include algorithms that aim to predict the occurrence of a heart failure event. They are intended to be used alongside clinical judgement and make treatment decisions. Objectives: To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the four remote monitoring algorithms (CorVue, HeartInsight, HeartLogic and TriageHF) for detecting heart failure in people with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Methods: We performed systematic reviews of clinical, cost-effectiveness, quality of life and cost outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and other sources of published and unpublished literature, including manufacturers' websites and Clinical Trials Registries between June and August 2023. For the clinical effectiveness review, study selection was completed by two independent reviewers at both title and abstract, and full-text screening stages. Data extraction and study quality appraisal were completed by a single reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second. Due to heterogeneity, no statistical analyses were performed, and a narrative synthesis was reported. A de novo two-state Markov model (with alive and dead states) was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of algorithm-based remote monitoring of heart failure risk data in people with cardiac implantable electronic devices over a lifetime. Results: There was reasonable evidence to suggest HeartLogic and TriageHF can accurately predict heart failure events. CorVue's prognostic accuracy is less clear due to high heterogeneity in findings between studies. There was only a single published HeartInsight study, which suggested similar accuracy to the other algorithms. Cost-effectiveness estimates could only be produced for HeartLogic and TriageHF, which were less costly and more effective compared to the respective cardiac implantable electronic device without the algorithms. For all technologies, only a small reduction in hospitalisation rates were required for them to be cost-effective. Limitations: The evidence for each algorithm was limited in terms of comparative evidence. Additionally, available evidence was often of low quality. The comparative outcome evidence for economic model was very limited. Conclusions: There was a lack of comparative evidence across all technologies included in the scope. Evidence for HeartLogic and TriageHF suggests that they may have acceptable prognostic accuracy for predicting heart failure events. However, further evidence is required to confirm these results. Specifically, further comparative evidence (e.g. randomised controlled trials) is required to show the benefit of the algorithms compared to standard practice in intermediate and clinical outcomes. For example, some studies suggested high false positive rates and low sensitivity. Only a single published study was identified for HeartInsight, therefore there are insufficient data to draw conclusions on prognostic accuracy and the benefits on clinical and intermediate outcomes. It is likely remote monitoring systems for CorVue, HeartInsight, HeartLogic and TriageHF would be cost-effective were they to result in fewer hospitalisations in heart failure patients; however, in general, this may apply to any device lowering the hospital visit. In addition, any potential benefits of reduced hospitalisation need to be carefully balanced with chances of overtreatment resulting from alerts. Future work: Prospective studies on effectiveness of remote monitoring as well as consideration of patient voice and preferences would facilitate a more complete evaluation of technology benefits. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42023447089. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135894) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 29, No. 50. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.