ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
Conversational AI for remote monitoring in heart failure: a prospective controlled pilot study.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models for post-discharge follow-up in erectile dysfunction care: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence Perceptions and Readiness Among Clinical Nurses: A Latent Profile Analysis With Implications for Nursing Management.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Heart failure (HF) requires scalable strategies to detect decompensation early and reduce hospitalizations. Existing telemonitoring tools are often invasive, complex, or poorly integrated into routine care. To evaluate the feasibility and clinical impact of a conversational artificial intelligence system (CAIS) for automated telephone follow-up in patients with HF. Methods and results: We conducted a prospective, non-randomized, controlled feasibility study at a tertiary hospital. Eighty-six outpatients received weekly AI-assisted follow-up via natural language processing calls, collecting symptoms and vital signs. Alerts were reviewed by HF nurses, who determined responses per standard practice. Forty patients received usual care. The primary objective was feasibility and acceptability; exploratory endpoints included all-cause death, cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and diuretic intensification at 12 months, analysed with Cox and competing-risks regression. Of 4272 scheduled calls, 3919 were completed (91.7%). CAIS generated 1962 alerts, prompting 648 actions-mainly nurse calls (86.6%) and medication changes (7.9%). Nurse workload was 2.4 min/patient/week. At 12 months, the CAIS group improved KCCQ-12 score by +7.13 points (95% CI 1.19-13.07; Conclusion: CAIS follow-up was feasible, well-received, and low-resource, with exploratory signals of improved outcomes. This pragmatic, scalable approach may enhance HF care and warrants validation in randomized trials.
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.