Digital healthcare is being introduced to the management of heart failure as a consequence of innovations in information technology. Advancement in technology enables remote symptom and device monitoring, and facilitates early detection and treatment of heart failure exacerbation, potentially improving patient outcomes and quality of life. It also provides the potential to redesign our heart failure healthcare system to one with greater efficacy through resource-sparing, computer-aided decision-making systems. Although promising, there is, as yet, insufficient evidence to support the widespread implementation of digital healthcare. Patient-related barriers include user characteristics and health status; privacy and security concerns; financial costs and lack of accessibility of digital resources. Physician-related barriers include the lack of infrastructure, incentive, knowledge and training. There are also a multitude of technical challenges in maintaining system efficiency and data quality. Furthermore, the lack of regulation and legislation regarding digital healthcare also prevents its large-scale deployment. Further education and support and a comprehensive workable evaluation framework are needed to facilitate confident and widespread use of digital healthcare in managing patients with heart failure.
For UK healthcare professionals only
According to the European Society of Cardiology Atlas project, >83 million people suffered from cardiovascular diseases in Europe in 2015.1 Heart failure (HF) is a common chronic disease in the ageing population. It is associated with poor prognosis, recurrent admissions and limited quality of life.2 Despite development of effective guideline-based treatment, the prognosis of HF patients remains poor. With the advancement of cyber technologies, digital healthcare has become more popular and may develop as a promising way to tackle challenges in HF management.
The objectives of this article are:
- Provide an overview of digital healthcare and its impact on patient outcome and healthcare delivery.
- Highlight the important challenges/barriers for large-scale digital health implementation.
- Predict the future of digital healthcare, in the field of HF.
Digital healthcare in HF
Digital healthcare involves the use of information and communication technologies to treat and monitor patients, convey healthy lifestyle information and advice (primary prevention), conduct research, educate healthcare professionals and monitor public health. Digital healthcare encompasses e-learning, mobile applications, remote monitoring, telerehabilitation and teleconsultation. Table 1 shows an overview of utilisation of digital healthcare in HF.3-15
Table 1. Overview of digital healthcare in heart failure
|Remote device monitoring|
|EVOLVO 20123||200 CHF patients with ICD/CRTD||Remote implant-based, multi-parameter monitoring||35% less frequent emergency visits for HF, arrhythmia or ICD-related events between intervention vs. control group|
|716 CHF patients with ICD/CRTD||Remote implant-based, multi-parameter monitoring||8% less deterioration in a clinical composite score (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalisation, NYHA class and change in patient global self-assessment) in the intervention vs. control group|
|OptiLink HF 20165||1,002 CHF patients with ICD ± CRT||Fluid status alerts via text message to responsible physician||No difference in composite all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalisation between intervention vs. control group|
|WHARF 20036||280 CHF patients||AlereNet monitoring system with symptom and weight monitoring||56% reduction in mortality but no difference in hospitalisation between intervention vs. control group|
|TEN-HMS 20057||426 CHF patients with recent HF hospitalisation||Home telemonitoring vs. nurse telephone support vs. usual care||Similar hospitalisation and mortality among patients assigned to home telemonitoring or nurse telephone support. 1-year mortality was higher in control (45%) vs. intervention groups (27–29%)|
|23 CHF patients||6-week in-home telemedicine education and monitoring programme||No difference in healthcare utilisation rates between intervention vs. control groups. Intervention group facilitated self-care|
|Tele-HF 20109||1,653 CHF patients with recent HF hospitalisation||Telephone-based interactive voice response system||No difference in all-cause hospitalisation/mortality within 180-days between intervention vs. control group|
|TIM-HF 201110||710 CHF patients||Remote telemonitoring using portable devices for ECG, weight and BP||No difference in all-cause/cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalisation between intervention vs. control group|
Inglis et al. 201511
|41 studies (5,472 CHF patients)||Structured telephone support/non-invasive home telemonitoring||Reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.87, 95%CI 0.77–0.98) and HF-related hospitalisation (RR 0.85, 95%CI 0.77–0.93) in intervention vs. control group|
|BEAT-HF 201612||1,457 CHF patients discharged after hospitalisation for decompensated HF||Telemonitoring and health coaching telephone calls||No difference in 30-day and 180-day all-cause hospitalisation or 180-day mortality between intervention vs. control group|
|1,650 CHF patients with cardiac implanted electronic devices||Remote monitoring of devices||No difference in all-cause mortality and unplanned cardiovascular hospitalisation between intervention and control group|
|Piotrowicz et al. 201014||152 CHF patients||8-week home-based telerehabilitation programme based on walking training||Telerehabilitation is equally as effective as standard care with similar improvement in quality of life|
|Piotrowicz et al. 201515||111 CHF patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices||8-week home-based telerehabilitation programme based on walking training||Improvement in exercise capacity and quality of life in the intervention vs. control group|
|Key: BP = blood pressure; CHF = chronic heart failure; CI = confidence interval; CRT = cardiac resynchronisation therapy;
CRTD = cardiac resynchronisation therapy with a defibrillator; ECG = electrocardiogram; HF = heart failure;
ICD = implantable cardiac defibrillator; NYHA = New York Heart Association; RR = relative risk
Impact of digital healthcare on patients’ healthcare experience
The ageing population and frailty have become major themes for patients with HF. Physical deconditioning and cognitive decline contribute to medication non-adherence, which predisposes to recurrent hospitalisation and death. HF management is complex and is guided by subtle changes in symptoms and signs of congestion and volume overload. Failure to make ongoing small, but clinically significant, titrations in HF medications contribute to increased hospitalisation and mortality. In patients with cardiac resynchronisation therapy, optimal management requires yet another layer of oversight – device management. With the advent of Bluetooth-connected cardiac resynchronisation therapy, a smartphone could provide remote device status and diagnostics.16 Digital healthcare enables remote symptom and implanted device monitoring and facilitates early detection and treatment of HF exacerbations, leading to better outcomes and quality of life.17 Provision of remote patient support also enhances patient-doctor communication. Furthermore, as online educational resources become more available, patients are also empowered to take a more active role in managing their conditions. Mobile applications that promote healthy lifestyle induce behavioural change, particularly against poor diet, smoking and physical inactivity;18 directly improving patient outcome.
Impact of digital healthcare on healthcare delivery
Our National Health Service (NHS) has limited resources to meet the increasing healthcare demand of the ageing population. Shortage of medical staff means that most healthcare resources are allocated to managing acutely unwell patients in hospital. This has a great impact on the management of patients with HF – a chronic condition that needs regular medical input. Digital healthcare provides the potential to redesign our HF healthcare system to one with greater efficacy through resource-sparing, computer-aided decision-making systems, remote monitoring and consultation.19 Artificial intelligence has been applied in various contexts, from the construction of automated clinical decision support systems to imaging interpretation. The Seattle HF model is a machine-learning risk-prediction model that was trained with clinical data routinely obtained from electronic health records to predict HF prognosis, which could potentially be useful in the management of high-risk HF patients.20
Challenges for implementing digital healthcare
Health applications and online resources, although positively perceived, were not widely used in HF populations. An observational study reported a telemonitoring intervention adherence rate of only 50% in HF patients.9
Patient-related barriers to digital healthcare include user characteristics and health status, privacy and security concerns; financial costs and lack of accessibility of digital resources; mistrust of online information; and lack of motivation.21 Old age, frailty, poor socioeconomic and health status, and low e-health literacy in the HF population predispose to suboptimal uptake of digital healthcare. Other contributors include lack of understanding of the concept of ‘patient empowerment’ or worries about receiving a poorer level of care due to the impersonal nature of a digital service.22 Most patients still regard their physicians as their predominant and most reliable source of health information. Others were overwhelmed by technology and were unable to keep up with technological advancements.22 There were also patient concerns regarding low self-efficacy and user-friendliness of telemonitoring technology.22 These problems might be partially attributable to the fact that development of digital healthcare is largely technically-driven and patients are rarely involved in its creation and design.23
Physician-related barriers to digital healthcare include lack of infrastructure, incentives, knowledge and training, regulations and standardisation.24 While digital healthcare enables easier patient monitoring, a heavy time investment is needed from clinicians to review incoming data and provide feedback to patients. Furthermore, most digital healthcare is added on top of existing healthcare rather than replacing it. For example, nurse-led telemonitoring for HF patients are set up without adapting the frequency of conventional hospital-based care by cardiologists, leading to increased healthcare costs.
Digital healthcare has a multitude of technical challenges. For example, telemonitoring involves transfer of physiological data to a centralised platform using wireless networks, software, algorithms for data capture and processing support. This process involves many challenges including technological capabilities, system efficiency and data integrity and quality. Despite a plethora of mobile applications available, only a very limited number have been tested for technical and clinical efficacy and quality. Of 11 chronic diseases studied (including HF), consistent evidence of benefit was only seen for diabetes applications. The benefits detected were of marginal clinical importance and there were no reports of hard clinical end points.25 Randomised-controlled trials provided conflicting evidence of efficacy of telemonitoring and telerehabilitation on outcomes such as hospitalisation and mortality (table 1). The lack of an evidence base behind digital healthcare limits the physicians’ confidence in adopting digital healthcare in daily practice.
Lack of regulation and legislation regarding digital healthcare prevents its widespread implementation. A World Health Organization (WHO) survey revealed huge variations among European countries in terms of e-health regulation or guidance on data validity, security and value assessment.26 To tackle this problem, national authorities are developing regional certification programmes for technological interventions.
The future of digital healthcare
Many think digital healthcare will improve the cost-effectiveness of our healthcare system and improve patients’ healthcare experience. Although promising, there is, as yet, insufficient evidence to support its widespread implementation, at least in the field of HF. Further education and support, and a comprehensive workable evaluation framework are needed to facilitate confident and widespread use of these technologies in managing HF patients. In particular, according to the ARCHIE framework, digital healthcare should be “anchored in what matters to users; realistic about natural history of illness, continuously co-created with users, embedded in social networks and integrated to mobilise knowledge across network” before implementation.27 Interestingly, a study pointed out that HF self-management may be associated with reduced hospital admissions in only a subgroup of patients who are under 65 years of age, whereas in other subgroups, such as patients with depression, self-management may be associated with reduced survival rate.28 This emphasises the importance of careful selection of patients before implementing digital healthcare.
Digital healthcare is being introduced to the management of HF as a consequence of innovations in information technology. Initial evaluation is that it might improve healthcare delivery but there are multiple barriers impeding its large-scale deployment. These challenges have to be tackled before HF becomes a cyber-specialty.
- Advancement in technology enables remote symptom and device monitoring, potentially improving patient outcomes and quality of life. It also provides the potential to redesign our heart failure healthcare system to one with greater efficacy through computer-aided decision-making systems
- Barriers to widespread implementation of digital healthcare in heart failure include patient-related barriers such as user characteristics; privacy and security concerns; physician-related barriers such as lack of infrastructure, knowledge and training; technical barriers, such as challenges in maintaining system efficiency and data quality; and the lack of regulation and legislation regarding digital healthcare
- Further education and support, and a comprehensive workable evaluation framework, are needed to facilitate confident and widespread use of digital healthcare in managing patients with heart failure
Conflicts of interest
1. Timmis A, Townsend N, Gale C et al.; the Atlas Writing Group. European Society of Cardiology: cardiovascular disease statistics 2017. Eur Heart J 2018;39:508–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx628
2. Dunlay SM, Redfield MM, Weston SA et al. Hospitalizations after heart failure diagnosis. A community perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1695–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.08.019
3. Landolina M, Perego GB, Lunati M et al. Remote monitoring reduces healthcare use and improves quality of care in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: the evolution of management strategies of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (EVOLVO) study. Circulation 2012;125:2985–92. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.088971
4. Hindricks G, Taborsky M, Glikson M et al. Implant-based multiparameter telemonitoring of patients with heart failure (IN-TIME): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2014;384:583–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61176-4
5. Böhm M, Drexler H, Oswald H. Fluid status telemedicine alerts for heart failure: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Heart J 2016;37:3154–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw099
6. Goldberg LR, Piette JD, Walsh MN et al. Randomized trial of a daily electronic home monitoring system in patients with advanced heart failure: the Weight Monitoring in Heart Failure (WHARF) trial. Am Heart J 2003;146:705–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8703(03)00393-4
7. Cleland JG, Louis AA, Rigby AS et al. Noninvasive home telemonitoring for patients with heart failure at high risk of recurrent admission and death: the Trans-European Network-Home-Care Management System (TEN-HMS) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:1654–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.01.050
8. Seibert PS, Whitmore TA, Patterson C et al. Telemedicine facilitates CHF home health care for those with systolic dysfunction. Int J Telemed Appl 2008:235031. https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/235031
9. Chaudhry SI, Mattera JA, Curtis JP et al. Telemonitoring in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2301–09. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1010029
10. Koehler F, Winkler S, Schieber M et al. Impact of remote telemedical management on mortality and hospitalizations in ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure: the telemedical interventional monitoring in heart failure study. Circulation 2011;123:1873–80. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.018473
11. Inglis SC, Clark RA, Dierckx R, Prieto-Merino D, Cleland JG. Structured telephone support or non-invasive telemonitoring for patients with heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;10:CD007228. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007228.pub3
12. Ong MK, Romano PS, Edginton S et al. Effectiveness of remote patient monitoring after discharge of hospitalized patients with heart failure: the Better Effectiveness After Transition – Heart Failure (BEAT-HF) randomized clinical trial. JAMA Int Med 2016;176:310–18. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7712
13. Morgan JM, Kitt S, Gill J et al. Remote management of heart failure using implantable electronic devices. Eur Heart J 2017;38:2352–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx227
14. Piotrowicz E, Baranowski R, Bilinska M et al. A new model of home-based telemonitored cardiac rehabilitation in patients with heart failure: effectiveness, quality of life and adherence. Eur J Heart Fail 2010;12:164–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjhf/hfp181
15. Piotrowicz E, Zielinski T, Bodalski R et al. Home-based telemonitored Nordic walking training is well accepted, safe, effective and has high adherence among heart failure patients, including those with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices – a randomized controlled study. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2015;22:1368–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487314551537
16. Turakhia MP. Telemedicine for management of implantable defibrillators: lessons learned and a look toward the future. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2017;10:e005728. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.117.005728
17. Darkins A, Ryan P, Kobb R et al. Care coordination/home telehealth: the systematic implementation of health informatics, home telehealth, and disease management to support the care of veteran patients with chronic conditions. Telemed J E Health 2008;14:1118–26. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2008.0021
18. Pagoto S, Bennett GG. How behavioral science can advance digital health. Transl Behav Med 2013;3:271–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-013-0234-z
19. Cowie MR, Bax J, Bruining N et al. E-health: a position statement of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2016;37:63–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv416
20. Levy WC, Mozaffarian D, Linker DT et al. The Seattle Heart Failure Model: prediction of survival in heart failure. Circulation 2006;113:1424–33. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.584102
21. Ware P, Bartlett SJ, Paré G et al. Using e-Health technologies: interests, preferences, and concerns of older adults. Interact J Med Res 2017;6:e3. https://doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.4447
22. Hall AK, Dodd V, Harris A et al. Heart failure patients’ perceptions and use of technology to manage disease symptoms. Telemed J E Health 2014;20:324–31. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2013.0146
23. Saner H, Van der Velde E. E-Health in cardiovascular medicine: a clinical update. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2016;23:5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487316670256
24. Villalba-Mora E, Casas I, Lupianez-Villaneuva F et al. Adoption of health information technologies by physicians for clinical practice: the Andalusian case. Int J Med Informat 2015;84:477–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.03.002
25. Scott IA, Scuffham P, Gupta D et al. Going digital: a narrative overview of the effects, quality and utility of mobile apps in chronic disease self-management. Aust Health Rev 2018;online first. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH18064
26. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. From innovation to implementation: eHealth in the WHO European Region. Copenhagen: WHO, 2016. Available from: www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/302331/From-Innovation-to-Implementation-eHealth-Report-EU.pdf?ua=1 [accessed April 2019].
27. Greenhalgh T, Procter R, Wherton J et al. What is quality in assisted living technology? The ARCHIE framework for effective telehealth and telecare services. BMC Med 2015;13:91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0279-6
28. Greenhalgh T, A’Court C, Shaw S. Understanding heart failure; explaining telehealth – a hermeneutic systematic review. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2017;17:156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-017-0594-2