Evalutation of a Hybrid Care Pathway With Remote MONitoring for Heart Failure

For each patient, follow-up time is calculated from the inclusion date until the earliest of the following: the end of the 400-day analysis period, death, or the last known date of contact (i.e., loss to follow-up). The number of days without hospitalisation is derived by subtracting the number of unplanned in-hospital days from each patient's accumulated person-time. By censoring follow-up at the date of death, person-time reflects only the period during which a patient was actually observed and at risk, thereby accounting for the competing risk of mortality. Although the primary outcome concerns the first year of follow-up, the analysis period is defined as the first 400 days after the inclusion date rather than exactly 365 days. In routine clinical practice, it is not always possible for a patient to attend an outpatient contact precisely 365 days after the start date. A modest margin is incorporated around the one-year mark, thereby maximising the proportion of complete follow-up.

Probability of survival free from all-cause death, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, reported as the percentage of participants alive at 400 days.

Probability of heart failure related death, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, reported as the percentage of participants alive at 400 days.

Based on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, units on a scale 0-100 (higher is better)

An economic evaluation will be performed as a cost-effectiveness analysis from a healthcare payer perspective and will be based on a discrete event simulation (DES) model. This event- and time-based structure is particularly suited for HF, in which the risk of clinical worsening/decompensation fluctuates over time and is influenced by patient-specific characteristics, and it allows for heterogeneity of the real-world population captured in this study. Patient-level data from both cohorts will be used to inform the model's input parameters. Costs will comprise those of regular HF care, home telemonitoring, clinical events and outpatient contacts, and pharmaceutical treatment, valued using the Dutch costing manual in accordance with the guidelines for economic evaluations. The primary economic outcome will be the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

The adequacy of pharmacological treatment is quantified using the GDMT-score, calculated according to the method described by Man et al: the sum dose ratios of the foundational HF therapies, each expressed as the prescribed dose relative to the guideline-recommended target dose, supplemented by additional components (0-1) for switching to an ARNI and for adequate iron status. The iron status will be reported as separate item. Units on a scale 0-5 (higher is better) for prescribed medication; percentage of patient with adequate iron status (0-100; higher is better)