ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2026
Economic evaluation of the TriageHF Plus clinical pathway for device-based remote monitoring in heart failure.
Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04177199 (Prospective Triage HF+ Evaluation), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Prospective Triage HF+ Evaluation: What is the Workload Burden Associated With Using the Triage HF+ Care Pathway?
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying and Comparing Intervention Cost Components in Remote Patient Monitoring: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2024, the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended TriageHF alerts as an option for remote monitoring of patients with heart failure (HF) and a compatible cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). Data on the cost-effectiveness of this approach has not been published. This research evaluates the cost-effectiveness of TriageHF Plus in public hospital settings, using data from the TriageHF Plus multicentre study (758 participants, NCT04177199).
methodsAn economic model was developed to capture the lifetime cost and benefits of TriageHF Plus versus usual care, based on a site of 300 eligible patients. Analysis on individual patient-level data informed model efficacy and resource use parameters. EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire data and unit costs were obtained from published, peer-reviewed literature and national databases respectively. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum to adjust future costs and benefits to present value.
resultsIn a site size of 300, TriageHF Plus was predicted to prevent 384 (363-405) hospitalisations over 5 years. In total, TriageHF Plus saved £3989 (£1812-£5563) per person-lifetime versus usual care and was more effective and cost-saving in 99.4% of simulations. Results were robust to changes in key input parameters. Modelling showed that to avoid one hospitalisation, 1.7 people would need lifetime access to TriageHF Plus.
conclusionThe TriageHF Plus pathway is cost-effective for the remote monitoring of HF in patients with CIEDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04177199.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.