LAUSR

BACKGROUND Smartphone compatible wearables have been released on the consumers market, enabling remote monitoring. Remote monitoring is often named as a tool to reduce the cost of care. OBJECTIVE The primary purpose of this paper is to describe a cost-utility analysis of an eHealth intervention compared to regular follow-up in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS In this trial, of which clinical results have been published previously, patients with an AMI were randomized in a 1:1 fashion between an eHealth intervention and regular follow-up. The remote monitoring intervention consisted of a blood pressure monitor, weight scale, electrocardiogram device, and step counter. Furthermore, two in-office outpatient clinic visits were replaced by e-visits. The control group received regular care. The differences in mean costs and quality of life per patient between both groups during one-year follow-up were calculated. RESULTS Mean costs per patient were €2417±2043 (US $2657±2246) for the intervention and €2888±2961 (US $3175±3255) for the control group. This yielded a cost reduction of €471 (US $518) per patient. This difference was not statistically significant (95% CI -€275 to €1217; P=.22, US $-302 to $1338). The average quality-adjusted life years in the first year of follow-up was 0.74 for the intervention group and 0.69 for the control (difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.01; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS eHealth in the outpatient clinic setting for patients who suffered from AMI is likely to be cost-effective compared to regular follow-up. Further research should be done to corroborate these findings in other patient populations and different care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02976376; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02976376. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/resprot.8038.