HOspital care versus TELemonitoring in high-risk pregnancy (HOTEL): study protocol for a multicentre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial

Josephus F M van den Heuvel, Wessel Ganzevoort, Jiska M De Haan-Jebbink, David P van der Ham, Koen L Deurloo, Laura Seeber, Arie Franx, Mireille N Bekker, Josephus F M van den Heuvel, Wessel Ganzevoort, Jiska M De Haan-Jebbink, David P van der Ham, Koen L Deurloo, Laura Seeber, Arie Franx, Mireille N Bekker

Abstract

Introduction: Pregnant women faced with complications of pregnancy often require long-term hospital admission for maternal and/or fetal monitoring. Antenatal admissions cause a burden to patients as well as hospital resources and costs. A telemonitoring platform connected to wireless cardiotocography (CTG) and automated blood pressure (BP) devices can be used for telemonitoring in pregnancy. Home telemonitoring might improve autonomy and reduce admissions and thus costs. The aim of this study is to compare the effects on patient safety, satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of hospital care versus telemonitoring (HOTEL) as an obstetric care strategy in high-risk pregnancies requiring daily monitoring.

Methods and analysis: The HOTEL trial is an ongoing multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial with a non-inferiority design. Eligible pregnant women are >26+0 weeks of singleton gestation requiring monitoring because of pre-eclampsia (hypertension with proteinuria), fetal growth restriction, preterm rupture of membranes without contractions, recurrent reduced fetal movements or an intrauterine fetal death in a previous pregnancy.Randomisation takes place between traditional hospitalisation (planned n=208) versus telemonitoring (planned n=208) until delivery. Telemonitoring at home is facilitated with Sense4Baby CTG devices, Microlife BP monitor and daily telephone calls with an obstetric healthcare professional as well as weekly hospital visits.Primary outcome is a composite of adverse perinatal outcome, defined as perinatal mortality, 5 min Apgar <7 or arterial cord blood pH <7.05, maternal morbidity (eclampsia, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, thromboembolic event), neonatal intensive care admission and caesarean section rate. Patient satisfaction and preference of care will be assessed using validated questionnaires. We will perform an economic analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention to treat principle.

Ethics and dissemination: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Center and the boards of all six participating centres. Trial results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number: NTR6076.

Keywords: eHealth; fetal growth restriction; fetal monitoring; high-risk pregnancy; home-based care; preeclampsia; preterm birth; telemedicine; telemonitoring.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of study procedures.

References

    1. Queenan JT. Management of High‐Risk Pregnancy: John Wiley And Sons Ltd, 2012.
    1. NICE Guideline CG107 hypertension in pregnancy: diagnosis and management. 2010.
    1. RCOG Green-top Guideline No.31 - The Investigation and Management of the Small–for–Gestational–Age Fetus, 2014.
    1. NICE NICE Guideline NG25 preterm labour and birth, 2015. (accessed 15-11-2018).
    1. Gourounti C, Karpathiotaki N, Vaslamatzis G. Psychosocial stress in high risk pregnancy. Int Arch Med 2015;8 10.3823/1694
    1. Huynh L, McCoy M, Law A, et al. . Systematic literature review of the costs of pregnancy in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 2013;31:1005–30. 10.1007/s40273-013-0096-8
    1. World Health Organization mHealth: new horizons for health through mobile technologies. global Observatory for eHealth series. 3 Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2011.
    1. Dorsey ER, Topol EJ, Telehealth Sof. State of telehealth. N Engl J Med 2016;375:154–61. 10.1056/NEJMra1601705
    1. van den Heuvel JF, Groenhof TK, Veerbeek JH, et al. . eHealth as the next-generation perinatal care: an overview of the literature. J Med Internet Res 2018;20:e202 10.2196/jmir.9262
    1. Chung Y, de Greeff A, Shennan A. Validation and compliance of a home monitoring device in pregnancy: Microlife WatchBP home. Hypertens Pregnancy 2009;28:348–59. 10.1080/10641950802601286
    1. Boatin AA, Wylie B, Goldfarb I, et al. . Wireless fetal heart rate monitoring in inpatient full-term pregnant women: testing functionality and acceptability. PLoS One 2015;10:e0117043 10.1371/journal.pone.0117043
    1. Buysse H, De Moor G, Van Maele G, et al. . Cost-Effectiveness of telemonitoring for high-risk pregnant women. Int J Med Inform 2008;77:470–6. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.08.009
    1. M Versteegh M, M Vermeulen K, M A A Evers S, et al. . Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health 2016;19:343–52. 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003
    1. Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait anxiety inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 1992;31:301–6. 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x
    1. Bergink V, Kooistra L, Lambregtse-van den Berg MP, et al. . Validation of the Edinburgh depression scale during pregnancy. J Psychosom Res 2011;70:385–9. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.07.008
    1. van der Ham DP, van der Heyden JL, Opmeer BC, et al. . Management of late-preterm premature rupture of membranes: the PPROMEXIL-2 trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.07.024
    1. Boers KE, Vijgen SMC, Bijlenga D, et al. . Induction versus expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction at term: randomised equivalence trial (DIGITAT). BMJ 2010;341:c7087 10.1136/bmj.c7087
    1. Broekhuijsen K, van Baaren G-J, van Pampus MG, et al. . Immediate delivery versus expectant monitoring for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation (HYPITAT-II): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2015;385:2492–501. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61998-X
    1. Tranquilli AL, Dekker G, Magee L, et al. . The classification, diagnosis and management of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a revised statement from the ISSHP. Pregnancy Hypertens 2014;4:97–104. 10.1016/j.preghy.2014.02.001

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅