Evidence Hub

Remote Acute Assessment of Cardiac Patients Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome (TELE-ACS): A Randomized Controlled Trial

Nasser S. Alshahrani, Adam Hartley, James Howard, Reza Hajhosseiny, S. Khawaja, H. Seligman, T. Akbari, Badr A. Alharbi et al.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2024

337 participants · 28 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Telemedicine programmes can provide remote diagnostic information to aid clinical decision that could optimize care and reduce unplanned re-admissions post ACS.

OBJECTIVES

TELE-ACS is a randomized controlled trial which aims to compare a telemedicine-based approach versus standard care in patients following ACS.

METHODS

Patients were suitable for inclusion with at least one cardiovascular risk factor and presenting with ACS and were randomized (1:1) prior to discharge. The primary outcome was time to first readmission at 6-months. Secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits, major adverse cardiovascular events and patient reported symptoms. The primary analysis was performed according to intention to treat. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05015634).

RESULTS

337 patients were randomized from January 2022 to April 2023, with a 3.6% drop-out rate. The mean age was 58.1 years. There was a reduced rate of readmission over 6-months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13 to 0.44; p < 0.001) and ED attendance (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.59; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89) in the telemedicine arm, and fewer unplanned coronary revascularizations (3% in telemedicine arm versus 9% in standard therapy arm). The occurrence of chest pain (9% versus 24%), breathlessness (21% versus 39%) and dizziness (6% versus 18%) at 6-months was lower in the telemedicine group.

CONCLUSIONS

The TELE-ACS study has shown that a telemedicine-based approach for…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 337 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free