» Articles » PMID: 32297946

Effect of Smartphone-Enabled Health Monitoring Devices Vs Regular Follow-up on Blood Pressure Control Among Patients After Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview
Journal JAMA Netw Open
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2020 Apr 17
PMID 32297946
Citations 44
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Importance: Smart technology via smartphone-compatible devices might improve blood pressure (BP) regulation in patients after myocardial infarction.

Objectives: To investigate whether smart technology in clinical practice can improve BP regulation and to evaluate the feasibility of such an intervention.

Design, Setting, And Participants: This study was an investigator-initiated, single-center, nonblinded, feasibility, randomized clinical trial conducted at the Department of Cardiology of the Leiden University Medical Center between May 2016 and December 2018. Two hundred patients, who were admitted with either ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment acute coronary syndrome, were randomized in a 1:1 fashion between follow-up groups using smart technology and regular care. Statistical analysis was performed from January 2019 to March 2019.

Interventions: For patients randomized to regular care, 4 physical outpatient clinic visits were scheduled in the year following the initial event. In the intervention group, patients were given 4 smartphone-compatible devices (weight scale, BP monitor, rhythm monitor, and step counter). In addition, 2 in-person outpatient clinic visits were replaced by electronic visits.

Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary outcome was BP control. Secondary outcomes, as a parameter of feasibility, included patient satisfaction (general questionnaire and smart technology-specific questionnaire), measurement adherence, all-cause mortality, and hospitalizations for nonfatal adverse cardiac events.

Results: In total, 200 patients (median age, 59.7 years [interquartile range, 52.9-65.6 years]; 156 men [78%]) were included, of whom 100 were randomized to the intervention group and 100 to the control group. After 1 year, 79% of patients in the intervention group had controlled BP vs 76% of patients in the control group (P = .64). General satisfaction with care was the same between groups (mean [SD] scores, 82.6 [14.1] vs 82.0 [15.1]; P = .88). The all-cause mortality rate was 2% in both groups (P > .99). A total of 20 hospitalizations for nonfatal adverse cardiac events occurred (8 in the intervention group and 12 in the control group). Of all patients, 32% sent in measurements each week, with 63% sending data for more than 80% of the weeks they participated in the trial. In the intervention group only, 90.3% of patients were satisfied with the smart technology intervention.

Conclusions And Relevance: These findings suggest that smart technology yields similar percentages of patients with regulated BP compared with the standard of care. Such an intervention is feasible in clinical practice and is accepted by patients. More research is mandatory to improve patient selection of such an intervention.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02976376.

Citing Articles

Advanced applications in chronic disease monitoring using IoT mobile sensing device data, machine learning algorithms and frame theory: a systematic review.

Liu Y, Wang B Front Public Health. 2025; 13:1510456.

PMID: 40061474 PMC: 11885302. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1510456.


Artificial Intelligence in Ischemic Heart Disease Prevention.

Parsa S, Shah P, Doijad R, Rodriguez F Curr Cardiol Rep. 2025; 27(1):44.

PMID: 39891819 DOI: 10.1007/s11886-025-02203-0.


Metrics for Evaluating Telemedicine in Randomized Controlled Trials: Scoping Review.

Sugawara Y, Hirakawa Y, Iwagami M, Inokuchi R, Wakimizu R, Nangaku M J Med Internet Res. 2025; 27:e67929.

PMID: 39889298 PMC: 11829184. DOI: 10.2196/67929.


Device based monitoring in digital care and its impact on hospital service use.

Jansen A, Peters G, Kooij L, Doggen C, van Harten W NPJ Digit Med. 2025; 8(1):16.

PMID: 39779761 PMC: 11711286. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-024-01427-8.


Excess cardiovascular mortality across multiple COVID-19 waves in the United States from March 2020 to March 2022.

Han L, Zhao S, Li S, Gu S, Deng X, Yang L Nat Cardiovasc Res. 2024; 2(3):322-333.

PMID: 39195997 DOI: 10.1038/s44161-023-00220-2.


References
1.
Steg P, Lopez-Sendon J, Lopez de Sa E, Goodman S, Gore J, Anderson Jr F . External validity of clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167(1):68-73. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.167.1.68. View

2.
Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes M, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H . 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European.... Eur Heart J. 2017; 39(2):119-177. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393. View

3.
Ascione F, BROWN G, Kirking D . Evaluation of a medication refill reminder system for a community pharmacy. Patient Educ Couns. 1985; 7(2):157-65. DOI: 10.1016/0738-3991(85)90006-0. View

4.
Liem S, van der Hoeven B, Oemrawsingh P, Bax J, van der Bom J, Bosch J . MISSION!: optimization of acute and chronic care for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2006; 153(1):14.e1-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.10.002. View

5.
Ware Jr J, Snyder M, Wright W, Davies A . Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann. 1982; 6(3-4):247-63. DOI: 10.1016/0149-7189(83)90005-8. View