Bridging Trials and Clinical Practice in Heart Failure

A joint statement by the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses (AAHFN), published on January 27, 2026, emphasizes the value of integrating technology into all facets of heart failure care. The statement aims to provide clinicians with suggestions for a more team-based, forward-thinking, and actionable system of care.

Integrated health technologies (IHTs) have become extremely prominent in heart failure care of late, allowing for timely clinical intervention and facilitating care coordination between disciplines. However, widespread challenges, including suboptimal engagement from patients, digital literacy and access disparities, and poor interoperability, have stymied the uptake process. This document guides clinicians in overcoming these challenges to optimize care.1

In the third episode of a 6-part HCPLive Special Report, Adam DeVore, MD, MHS, and Laura Peters, DNP, come together to discuss the intrinsic value of including recent technological advancements in standard clinical care.

In discussing the implementation of digital tools in heart failure care, panelists reflected on the pace at which technology evolves—and the challenges that rapid innovation creates for clinical research and implementation. While new monitoring tools, digital platforms, and remote care strategies continue to emerge, the traditional timelines of clinical trials often struggle to keep up. By the time a study is completed and published, the technology it evaluated may already be outdated or replaced by a newer iteration. This reality highlights the growing need for research frameworks that can evaluate digital health innovations in real time while maintaining scientific rigor.

Another key consideration raised during the discussion was the representativeness of clinical trial populations. Historically, many studies evaluating digital health tools have been conducted in relatively idealized healthcare environments, often involving patients who have strong access to specialty care and the resources needed to participate in research. However, clinicians frequently care for patients whose circumstances differ substantially from those trial populations. As digital monitoring and remote care platforms become more widely adopted in heart failure management, ensuring that study participants reflect the diversity of real-world patients—including those with varying socioeconomic backgrounds, digital literacy levels, and access to care—will be critical.

This issue is particularly important when considering geographic disparities in cardiovascular care. In many rural regions of the United States, access to cardiology specialists remains limited, with some estimates suggesting that a substantial proportion of counties lack a practicing cardiologist. In these settings, digital monitoring technologies and remote care models could offer meaningful opportunities to extend specialty expertise to patients who might otherwise face significant barriers to care. Yet these same communities are often underrepresented in clinical trials due to logistical challenges associated with study recruitment and follow-up.

The panel also noted that patient adherence remains a significant determinant of whether digital monitoring technologies ultimately deliver meaningful clinical benefits. Even the most sophisticated remote monitoring platforms rely on patients engaging consistently with devices, reporting symptoms, or transmitting data. As a result, identifying which patients are most likely to benefit from these technologies—and understanding the barriers that may limit their use—represents an important area of ongoing research.

Ultimately, the discussion underscored that digital health technologies should be viewed as an expanding component of the heart failure care toolkit rather than a solution suited only for a narrow subset of patients. Not every patient will choose to use these tools, and not every individual will experience measurable benefit. However, as clinicians become more comfortable integrating digital platforms into routine practice, offering these options may help broaden access, enhance flexibility in care delivery, and better align heart failure management with the realities of patients’ lives.

Our Panelists:

• Adam DeVore, MD, MHS, is an associate professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at Duke University School of Medicine, as well as the medical director of the Duke Heart Transplant program.
• Laura Peters, DNP, is an assistant professor of medicine in the advanced heart failure and cardiac transplant section within the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado, as well as a senior clinical instructor in the University of Colorado College of Nursing and the director of the Children’s Hospital Colorado and UCHealth Heart Transplant Transition Program.

Editors’ Note: Peters and DeVore report no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Cajita M, Peters L, Rao VN, et al. Integrated Health Technologies in heart failure: A scientific statement from the Heart Failure Society of America and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses. Journal of Cardiac Failure. Published online January 27, 2026. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2025.08.029

2. Heart Failure Society of America. Integrated Health Technologies in Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement from the Heart Failure Society of America and American Association of Heart Failure Nurses. January 27, 2026. Accessed March 5, 2026. https://hfsa.org/integrated-health-technologies-heart-failure-scientific-statement-heart-failure-society-america-and