Loading
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Journal article
European Heart Journal - Digital Health · August 20, 2026
Reinforces what was already believed, rather than introducing something new.
This systematic review synthesizes evidence from 62 studies (only 4 RCTs) demonstrating that digital health technologies enable value-based cardiology and electrophysiology care through improved adherence, earlier atrial fibrillation detection, heart failure telemonitoring, and patient-reported outcome integration. However, the evidence remains heterogeneous and geographically uneven, with few studies quantifying cost-effectiveness or quality-adjusted life-years, confirming DHTs' potential while highlighting substantial gaps in robust outcome-linked evidence.
Systematic review following PRISMA 2020. English-language publications (2017–2024) linking digital health technologies and value-based healthcare in cardiology and electrophysiology.. Intervention: Digital health technologies (remote monitoring, AI, PROMs, wearables, telemonitoring, ePROMs) embedded within value-based healthcare frameworks.. n = 62. Not specified; stated as geographically uneven..
Only 4 of 62 studies (6.5%) were RCTs, with 18 studies (29%) addressing CV conditions and EP as key focus. DHTs demonstrated value via improved adherence, earlier AF detection, HF telemonitoring and PROM integration. Few studies quantified cost-effectiveness or QALYs; evidence was heterogeneous and geographically uneven.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
Clinicians should recognize DHTs as emerging enablers of value-based cardiac care with documented benefits in adherence and monitoring, but must acknowledge that robust economic evaluation and standardized outcome metrics remain lacking, particularly in electrophysiology. Future adoption should prioritize pragmatic trials and cost-effectiveness data to align digital innovations with value-based reimbursement models.
A systematic review synthesizing fragmented evidence across 62 studies showing DHTs enable value-based cardiology care through improved adherence and monitoring, but confirming rather than establishing new practice, given heterogeneous evidence quality and only 4 RCTs (6.5%).
As stated by the source record.
Clinicians should recognize DHTs as emerging enablers of value-based cardiac care with documented benefits in adherence and monitoring, but must acknowledge that robust economic evaluation and standardized outcome metrics remain lacking, particularly in electrophysiology. Future adoption should prioritize pragmatic trials and cost-effectiveness data to align digital innovations with value-based reimbursement models.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
What is missing. This record has no reported figures. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Abstract Background Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) are increasingly embedded within VBHC frameworks to enhance outcomes and efficiency. In CV medicine, and particularly EP, they hold transformative potential through remote monitoring, AI and PROMs. Yet, evidence linking DHTs to measurable value remains fragmented Objective To systematically assess the role of DHTs as enablers of VBHC in cardiology and EP, identifying demonstrated benefits, evidence gaps and research priorities. Methods Following PRISMA 2020 (PROSPERO CRD420250650295), PubMed, ScienceDirect and Mendeley were searched (2017–2024) for English-language publications combining “digital health” and “value-based healthcare.” Studies meeting ≥2 criteria, VBHC focus, DHT assessment or value-oriented process analysis, were included. Data were synthesised across nine domains: electronic PROMs, mHealth, telemedicine, big data/AI and LHS. Results Sixty-two studies and twenty-three policy documents were included. Only 4 (6.5%) were RCTs. Eighteen studies (29%) addressed CV conditions, with EP as a key focus. DHTs demonstrated value via improved adherence, earlier AF detection, HF telemonitoring and PROM integration, though few quantified cost-effectiveness or QALYs. Evidence was heterogeneous and geographically uneven. Conclusions DHTs are pivotal enablers of value-based CV care, but robust outcome-linked evidence, especially in EP, remains limited. Wearables, telemonitoring and ePROMs illustrate measurable value, while AI-driven prediction and workflow optimisation are emerging frontiers. Future work should emphasise pragmatic trials, economic evaluations and standardised outcome metrics to reward digital value creation.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.