%0杂志文章%@ 1438- 8871% I JMIR出版物%V 24卡塔尔世界杯8强波胆分析% N 4% P e30236% T Box-eHealth在急性心肌梗死患者门诊随访中的应用:成本效用分析%A Treskes,Roderick Willem %A van den Akker-van Marle,M Elske %A van Winden,Louise %A van Keulen,Nicole %A van der Velde,Enno Tjeerd %A Beeres,Saskia %A Atsma,Douwe %A Schalij,Martin Jan +莱顿大学医学中心心内科，Albinusdreef 2，莱顿，2333 ZA，荷兰，31 715262020，m.j.schalij@lumc.nl %K智能技术%K心肌梗死%K成本-效用%K门诊%K成本-效用%K电子健康%K远程监测%K护理成本%K生活质量%D 2022 %7 25.4.2022 %9原始论文%J J医学互联网Res %G英文%X背景:智能手机兼容的可穿戴设备已在消费者市场发布，实现远程监测。远程监测通常被认为是一种降低护理成本的工具。目的:本文的主要目的是描述电子健康干预与急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者常规随访的成本-效用分析。方法:在这项临床结果已发表的试验中，AMI患者以1:1的方式随机分组，分别接受电子健康干预和定期随访。远程监测干预包括血压监测仪、体重秤、心电图仪和计步器。此外，两次门诊门诊被电子门诊取代。对照组接受常规护理。计算两组患者在一年随访期间的平均费用和生活质量的差异。 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 %M 35468091 %R 10.2196/30236 %U //www.mybigtv.com/2022/4/e30236 %U https://doi.org/10.2196/30236 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35468091

map