Acute Kidney Injury Survivor Remote Patient Monitoring: A Single Center’s Experience and an Effectiveness Evaluation

• Published in: Kidney medicine Vol. 6; no. 11; p. 100905
• Main Authors: Charkviani, Mariam, Kattah, Andrea G., Rule, Andrew D., Ferguson, Jennifer A., Mara, Kristin C., Kashani, Kianoush B., May, Heather P., Rosedahl, Jordan K., Reddy, Swetha, Philpot, Lindsey M., Barreto, Erin F.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Inc 01.11.2024
• Subjects: acute kidney injury; digital health; health technology; remote patient monitoring; Telehealth; remote patient monitoring; acute kidney injury; digital health; health technology; Telehealth
• ISSN: 2590-0595; 2590-0595
• DOI: 10.1016/j.xkme.2024.100905

Remote patient monitoring (RPM) could improve the quality and efficiency of acute kidney injury (AKI) survivor care. This study described our experience with AKI RPM and characterized its effectiveness. A cohort study matched 1:3 to historical controls. Patients hospitalized with an episode of AKI who were discharged home and were not treated with dialysis. Participation in an AKI RPM program, which included use of a home vital sign and symptom monitoring technology and weekly in-center laboratory assessments. Risk of unplanned hospital readmission or emergency department (ED) visit within 6 months. Endpoints were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Forty of the 49 patients enrolled in AKI RPM (82%) participated in the program after hospital discharge. Seventy three percent of patients experienced one AKI RPM alert, most commonly related to fluid status. Among those with stage 3 AKI, the risk of unplanned readmission or ED visit within 6 months of discharge was not different between AKI RPM patients (n=34) and matched controls (n=102) (HR 1.33 [95% CI, 0.81-2.18]; P=0.27). The incidence of an ED visit without hospitalization was significantly higher in the AKI RPM group (HR 1.95, [95% CI, 1.05-3.62]; P=0.035). The risk of an unplanned readmission or ED visit was higher in those with baseline eGFR<45mL/min/1.73m2 exposed to AKI RPM (HR 2.24 [95% CI, 1.19-4.20]; P=0.012) when compared with those with baseline eGFR≥45mL/min/1.73m2 (HR 0.69 [95% CI, 0.29-1.67]; P=0.41) (test of interaction P=0.04). Small sample size that may have been underpowered for the effectiveness endpoints. AKI RPM, when used after hospital discharge, led to alerts and interventions directed at optimizing kidney health and AKI complications but did not reduce the risk for rehospitalization.