Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 18, 2025

A Novel Digital Platform for a Monitored Home-based Cardiac Rehabilitation Program
Published on: April 19, 2019
Comparative Diagnostic Efficacy of HeartLogic and TriageHF Algorithms in Remote Monitoring of Heart Failure: A Cohort
David Ledesma Oloriz1, Daniel García Iglesias1,2, Rodrigo Ariel di Massa Pezzutti1,2
1Arrhythmia Unit, Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, 33011 Oviedo, Spain.
Insights
The TriageHF algorithm shows higher sensitivity and positive predictive value for heart failure decompensation alerts than HeartLogic, but generates more alarms. HeartLogic offers better specificity, crucial for optimizing remote patient monitoring strategies.
Area of Science:
- Biomedical Engineering
- Cardiology
- Medical Device Technology
Background:
- Implantable defibrillator devices (ICDs) enable remote monitoring for heart failure (HF) management.
- TriageHF and HeartLogic algorithms estimate HF decompensation risk using ICD data.
- Comparative studies evaluating both algorithms head-to-head are lacking.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the TriageHF and HeartLogic algorithms.
- To evaluate the performance of two distinct HF decompensation risk estimation algorithms in a comparable patient cohort.
Main Methods:
- A descriptive monocentric cohort study involving 64 patients with ICDs featuring TriageHF or HeartLogic.
- Data collected between January 2020 and June 2022.
- Analysis of 1142 alarms, with 27 patients in the HeartLogic group and 37 in the TriageHF group.
Main Results:
- The TriageHF group exhibited a significantly higher risk alarm-to-patient ratio (3.32 ± 3.08) compared to HeartLogic (1.31 ± 1.89).
- TriageHF demonstrated higher sensitivity (0.97) and positive predictive value (PPV) (0.18) but lower specificity (0.76) than HeartLogic.
- Both algorithms showed similar negative predictive value (NPV) and no significant difference in 30-day survival post-alert.
Conclusions:
- TriageHF offers superior sensitivity and PPV, potentially identifying more at-risk patients but generating more alarms.
- HeartLogic provides better specificity, reducing false alarms and potentially streamlining patient follow-up.
- Algorithm selection should consider the trade-offs between sensitivity, specificity, and alarm burden for optimized home monitoring.
Introduction:
Implantable defibrillator devices (ICDs) can be used for remote monitoring of different variables, including some related to Heart Failure (HF). Two different algorithms (TriageHF and HeartLogic) arise by combining some of these variables to generate an estimation of HF decompensation risk in the following days. Until now, no other trial has evaluated both algorithms in a head-to-head comparison. The primary objective is to compare diagnostic accuracy of both algorithms in a similar cohort of patients.
Material And Methods:
Descriptive monocentric cohort study of a series of 64 patients who have been implanted with a Medtronic or Boston Scientific ICD with the TriageHF or Heart Logic algorithm available during the period between January 2020 and June 2022, with a total of 27 patients in the HeartLogic group and 37 patients in the TriageHF group.
Results:
During the period of the study there were a total of 1142 alarms analyzed. There were no differences in the basal characteristics of both groups. We reported a risk alarm-patient ratio of 1.31 ± 1.89 in the HeartLogic group and of 3.32 ± 3.08 in the TriageHF group (p < 0.01). In the TriageHF group, we reported a lower specificity with (0.76), with higher sensitivity (0.97) and PPV (0.18), and similar NPV (1). Survival analysis shows no statistical differences between both algorithms in the 30 days following the alert.
Conclusions:
TriageHF algorithm had higher sensibility and PPV, leading to a higher number of alerts/patients, while HeartLogic algorithm had a better specificity. These differences should be considered to optimize patient follow-ups in home monitoring.
More Related Videos
05:16Cutoff Value of Phase Angle by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis at Admission as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Acute Heart Failure
Published on: June 10, 2025
18:11A Research Method For Detecting Transient Myocardial Ischemia In Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome Using Continuous ST-segment Analysis
Published on: December 28, 2012
Related Concept Videos
Pulse rhythm
Conversely, an irregular pulse pattern is termed dysrhythmia, stemming from disruptions in cardiac...
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Holter Monitor: 24-Hour Monitoring
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy