This randomized clinical trial compares the safety and efficacy of nurse practitioner–led remote intensive management with cardiologist-led standard care for low-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Key Points Question Is remote postdischarge treatment of low-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction by a centralized nurse clinician team under physician supervision feasible and safe? Findings In this multicenter randomized clinical trial of 301 participants, there were no significant differences in safety events, medication adjustment, or left ventricular reverse remodeling outcomes in low-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction treated for 6 months after discharge by a centralized nurse practitioner–led telehealth program compared with standard in-person care by a cardiologist. Meaning Remote telehealth-enabled allied health care practitioner–led postdischarge management of low-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction is feasible and should be studied in higher-risk acute myocardial infarction cohorts.
Importance There are few data on remote postdischarge treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Objective To compare the safety and efficacy of allied health care practitioner–led remote intensive management (RIM) with cardiologist-led standard care (SC). Design, Setting, and Participants This intention-to-treat feasibility trial randomized patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing early revascularization and with N-terminal–pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration more than 300 pg/mL to RIM or SC across 3 hospitals in Singapore from July 8, 2015, to March 29, 2019. RIM participants underwent 6 months of remote consultations that included β-blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACE-I/ARB) dose adjustment by a centralized nurse practitioner team while SC participants were treated face-to-face by their cardiologists. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary safety end point was a composite of hypotension, bradycardia, hyperkalemia, or acute kidney injury requiring hospitalization. To assess the efficacy of RIM in dose adjustment of β-blockers and ACE-I/ARBs compared with SC, dose intensity scores were derived by converting comparable doses of different β-blockers and ACE-I/ARBs to a scale from 0 to 5. The primary efficacy end point was the 6-month indexed left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) adjusted for baseline LVESV. Results Of 301 participants, 149 (49.5%) were randomized to RIM and 152 (50.5%) to SC. RIM and SC participants had similar mean (SD) age (55.3 [8.5] vs 54.7 [9.1] years), median (interquartile range) N-terminal–pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration (807 [524-1360] vs 819 [485-1320] pg/mL), mean (SD) baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (57.4% [11.1%] vs 58.1% [10.3%]), and mean (SD) indexed LVESV (32.4 [14.1] vs 30.6 [11.7] mL/m2); 15 patients [5.9%] had a left ventricular ejection fraction