Are we there yet?: The reality of remote monitoring – Cardiovascular Business

Remote monitoring and high-tech health management solutions have dominated cardiology headlines for the better part of the past year, touted for their accessibility and preventive benefits. But that vision of remote monitoring as the future of CV care might be a skewed representation of our current reality.

At MedAxioms fall CV Transforum in Dana Point, Calif., this October, John Rumsfeld, MD, PhD, chief innovation officer for the American College of Cardiology, talked digital transformation and weighed in on the feasibility of innovations like remote monitoring, AI and virtual care. And he has a message for cardiologists when it comes to those tech-driven interventions: slow down.

Were putting our whole innovation effort, or a major part of it, into remote monitoring, Rumsfeld said. And yet, our own clinical practice guidelines are pretty lukewarm on the state of remote monitoring.

Focusing on remote monitoring in the context of heart failure, Rumsfeld said that current guidelinesincluding those from the ACC, American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiologyadmit the evidence for remote monitoring of HF is mixed. They cite variable clinical trial results, and even in the case of CardioMEMS, an implantable sensor thats been met with great success, the highest level of recommendation is class IIb, level B.

See the original post here:

Are we there yet?: The reality of remote monitoring - Cardiovascular Business