Dokument-ID Dokumenttyp Verfasser/Autoren Herausgeber Haupttitel Abstract Auflage Verlagsort Verlag Erscheinungsjahr Seitenzahl Schriftenreihe Titel Schriftenreihe Bandzahl ISBN Quelle der Hochschulschrift Konferenzname Quelle:Titel Quelle:Jahrgang Quelle:Heftnummer Quelle:Erste Seite Quelle:Letzte Seite URN DOI Abteilungen OPUS4-15142 Wissenschaftlicher Artikel Hofmann, Reiner; Völler, Heinz; Nagels, Klaus; Bindl, Dominik; Vettorazzi, Eik; Dittmar, Ronny; Wohlgemuth, Walter; Neumann, Till; Störk, Stefan; Bruder, Oliver; Wegscheider, Karl; Nagel, Eckhard; Fleck, Eckart First outline and baseline data of a randomized, controlled multicenter trial to evaluate the health economic impact of home telemonitoring in chronic heart failure - CardioBBEAT Background: Evidence that home telemonitoring for patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) offers clinical benefit over usual care is controversial as is evidence of a health economic advantage. Methods: Between January 2010 and June 2013, patients with a confirmed diagnosis of CHF were enrolled and randomly assigned to 2 study groups comprising usual care with and without an interactive bi-directional remote monitoring system (Motiva\(^{®}\)). The primary endpoint in CardioBBEAT is the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) established by the groups' difference in total cost and in the combined clinical endpoint "days alive and not in hospital nor inpatient care per potential days in study" within the follow-up of 12 months. Results: A total of 621 predominantly male patients were enrolled, whereof 302 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 319 to the control group. Ischemic cardiomyopathy was the leading cause of heart failure. Despite randomization, subjects of the control group were more often in NYHA functional class III-IV, and exhibited peripheral edema and renal dysfunction more often. Additionally, the control and intervention groups differed in heart rhythm disorders. No differences existed regarding risk factor profile, comorbidities, echocardiographic parameters, especially left ventricular and diastolic diameter and ejection fraction, as well as functional test results, medication and quality of life. While the observed baseline differences may well be a play of chance, they are of clinical relevance. Therefore, the statistical analysis plan was extended to include adjusted analyses with respect to the baseline imbalances. Conclusions: CardioBBEAT provides prospective outcome data on both, clinical and health economic impact of home telemonitoring in CHF. The study differs by the use of a high evidence level randomized controlled trial (RCT) design along with actual cost data obtained from health insurance companies. Its results are conducive to informed political and economic decision-making with regard to home telemonitoring solutions as an option for health care. Overall, it contributes to developing advanced health economic evaluation instruments to be deployed within the specific context of the German Health Care System. 2015 Trials 16 343 urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-151429 10.1186/s13063-015-0886-8 Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I OPUS4-14039 Wissenschaftlicher Artikel Edelmann, Frank; Wachter, Rolf; Düngen, Hans-Dirk; Störk, Stefan; Richter, Annette; Stahrenberg, Raoul; Neumann, Till; Lüers, Claus; Angermann, Christiane E.; Mehrhof, Felix; Gelbrich, Götz; Pieske, Burkert Heart failure therapy in diabetic patients-comparison with the recent ESC/EASD guideline Background: To assess heart failure therapies in diabetic patients with preserved as compared to impaired systolic ventricular function. Methods: 3304 patients with heart failure from 9 different studies were included (mean age 63 +/- 14 years); out of these, 711 subjects had preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>= 50%) and 994 patients in the whole cohort suffered from diabetes. Results: The majority (>90%) of heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (SHF) and diabetes were treated with an ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) or with beta-blockers. By contrast, patients with diabetes and preserved ejection fraction (HFNEF) were less likely to receive these substance classes (p < 0.001) and had a worse blood pressure control (p < 0.001). In comparison to patients without diabetes, the probability to receive these therapies was increased in diabetic HFNEF patients (p < 0.001), but not in diabetic SHF patients. Aldosterone receptor blockers were given more often to diabetic patients with reduced ejection fraction (p < 0.001), and the presence and severity of diabetes decreased the probability to receive this substance class, irrespective of renal function. Conclusions: Diabetic patients with HFNEF received less heart failure medication and showed a poorer control of blood pressure as compared to diabetic patients with SHF. SHF patients with diabetes were less likely to receive aldosterone receptor blocker therapy, irrespective of renal function. 2011 1-8 Cardiovascular Diabetology 10 15 urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-140397 10.1186/1475-2840-10-15 Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I