Trial reportESC heart failure2026
Home-based body water monitoring and management system for heart failure patients using bioelectrical impedance analysis.
Trial report in ESC heart failure, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical effectiveness of a home-based body water monitoring and pre-emptive management system using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) in patients with heart failure (HF).
methodsIn this multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial, 40 HF patients receiving loop diuretics were assigned to standard care or a home BIA group using a home-based BIA device with a linked application providing weekly feedback and guidance on diuretic management. Feasibility outcomes included study completion, adherence, usability and acceptability scores, and adverse events over 12 weeks. Effectiveness outcomes included changes in NT-proBNP, oedema index, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.
resultsThirty-nine patients were included in the final analysis after exclusion of one patient lost to follow-up in the control group. Patients in the control group were older than those in the home BIA group (70.4 ± 8.3 vs 57.2 ± 13.5; P = .003), and baseline NT-proBNP levels were higher (2737.1 ± 3817.1 vs 1357.7 ± 2196.8 pg/ml; P = .013), while other baseline characteristics were comparable. In the home BIA group, the completion rate was 100.0% and adherence to BIA measurements was 82.5%. Acute kidney injury occurred in one patient (5.0%), with no discontinuations due to adverse events. Usability and acceptability were high (4.21 ± 0.59; 3.90 ± 0.53, respectively) on a 5-point Likert scale. There were no significant differences in changes in NT-proBNP or oedema index during follow-up between groups. Worsening NYHA class occurred less frequently in the home BIA group (10.0% vs 31.6%; P = .095). Changes in the oedema index correlated with changes in NT-proBNP (r = 0.544; P = .002), whereas changes in body weight did not (r = 0.237; P = .147). No HF hospitalizations or deaths occurred.
conclusionHome-based BIA monitoring with pre-emptive management is feasible, acceptable, and safe for patients with HF.
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.