Evolving Evidence Supporting Remote Patient Monitoring in Cardiology

Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has emerged as a pivotal tool in the management of cardiovascular conditions. From preventing acute exacerbations to improving access to care, especially in underserved areas, the latest research underscores RPM's transformative potential. For cardiologists, keeping up with these advancements is not just helpful; it is essential for delivering better outcomes in an increasingly digital healthcare environment.

What the Latest Research Reveals

A number of recent studies underscore both the clinical and operational benefits of RPM in cardiology, with some major themes emerging.

First, we are seeing greater emphasis on preventive care. A growing body of research supports the role of RPM in primary and secondary prevention. By detecting clinical deterioration earlier in the disease course, RPM helps avoid hospitalization and improves population health outcomes. This shift toward prevention aligns closely with the goals of cardiology practices seeking to reduce readmissions and proactively manage chronic conditions.

Second, the technological evolution of RPM is marked by the incorporation of more sophisticated wearables. Devices are not just tracking heart rate and oxygen saturation. They are increasingly capable of arrhythmia detection and passive rhythm surveillance. These tools are especially impactful in the electrophysiology space, where early identification of atrial fibrillation and other rhythm disturbances can lead to timely intervention and stroke prevention.

Third, artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to show significant promise in helping clinicians interpret the vast and growing volumes of data generated by remote patient monitoring. By detecting subtle patterns and early warning signals that might elude even experienced providers, AI has the potential to enhance decision-making, particularly in managing high-risk cardiac patients with multiple comorbidities. However, the technology is still evolving, and its implementation carries real risks, including algorithmic bias, false positives, and the potential for overreliance on "black-box" models where AI decision-making logic is unclear. As we adopt AI in cardiology, maintaining transparency, clinical oversight, and rigorous validation will be key to ensuring safe and effective use.

Research Bringing RPM Into Focus

Within the expanding body of research supporting RPM in cardiovascular care, several recent studies help illustrate the technology's immediate and long-term potential. Even a brief examination of these findings reveals how RPM is reshaping patient management and addressing critical gaps in care across a range of cardiac conditions.

Starting with heart failure, one 2024 study looked at the use of active RPM systems in rural settings, where specialty care access tends to be limited. Over a multi-year period, patients using RPM for daily vitals and symptom tracking saw a significant reduction in heart failure hospitalizations and emergency department visits. That aligns with what we are seeing more broadly: heart failure appears to be one of the most promising use cases for RPM, and the body of research continues to expand in support of its value.1

Another fairly recent study looked at an RPM program rolled out to patients discharged from emergency departments (ED) across 10 hospitals. Of nearly 110,000 patients offered RPM, only about one-quarter opted in, but those who did were less likely to return to the ED within 90 days. Over the following year, RPM participants had a more than 16% lower chance of returning to the ED. What stood out to me was that even with relatively low participation, the impact was noticeable. It raises important questions about how to improve adoption. The potential for RPM to reduce ED visits seems real, if we can get more patients to engage.2

Finally, I would point to several studies, including one I have been involved with in partnership with a large, nonprofit teaching hospital, that look at hypertension control. RPM programs in this space have shown consistent improvements in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared to standard care. The ability to monitor blood pressure remotely allows physicians to intervene more quickly when medications are not working, and that kind of timely action makes a big difference in reducing cardiovascular risk.3

Broadly, these studies reflect the momentum building behind RPM, not just as a monitoring tool, but as a means of improving real-world outcomes across a range of cardiovascular conditions.

RPM in Daily Practice

What I am observing in my clinical practice closely mirrors some of the findings highlighted in recent research. First and foremost, patient engagement stands out. Whether it is heart failure management or weight loss programs, patients who actively engage with their RPM tools — viewing their data and participating in their care — tend to experience better outcomes. Seeing their progress in real time helps reinforce behavior change and builds accountability, both of which are powerful patient motivators.

Another key observation is the value of early intervention. RPM allows us to monitor patient data continuously, which means we can act in real time, rather than waiting for the next scheduled visit weeks or months down the line. If we see that a patient's blood pressure or weight is trending in the wrong direction, we can make adjustments on the spot. That ability to respond dynamically has led to more measurable improvements in patient health and, in many cases, has helped prevent avoidable hospitalizations.

Workflow is also critical. The RPM programs that succeed are those built around team-based care models, not just physician-led ones. It takes more than a single provider to track daily vitals and trends across a large patient panel. Having a dedicated care team to review incoming data and escalate issues when needed is essential. RPM works best when it is seamlessly integrated into the broader care delivery infrastructure.

For providers either running or planning to launch RPM programs, these findings suggest several key takeaways. One is patient selection. Too often, RPM is offered to patients who are already highly engaged and motivated — in other words, those who actively seek out tech-enabled care. While these patients certainly benefit, they may not be the ones who need it most. High-risk patients, like those with frequent hospitalizations, unmanaged chronic conditions, or barriers to accessing traditional care, should be a priority. These are the individuals for whom RPM could make the most significant impact.

That means we need to rethink how we stratify risk and identify eligible patients. Rather than waiting for patients to opt in, we should proactively offer RPM to those with complex needs, such as individuals with decompensated heart failure or recent myocardial infarctions, who could benefit from tighter monitoring between visits.

We also need to view RPM not as a replacement for in-person care, but as a clinical extension. It should augment and support traditional care, enabling us to stay connected to our patients in meaningful ways, even when they are not physically in front of us. No amount of data can substitute for a strong provider-patient relationship, but RPM can help us deliver more timely, responsive care at scale.

Lastly, clinician advocacy is essential. When I first became involved in RPM several years ago, there was significant skepticism among my peers. That hesitation still exists in some circles. But the evidence supporting RPM continues to grow, and its role in modern care models is only expanding. As clinicians, we need to move beyond resistance and become champions of these tools. Our endorsement helps validate RPM for patients and smooths the way for better integration into clinical workflows.

If we can lead with intention, prioritize the right patients, and remain open to innovation, RPM can become not just a tool for convenience, but a cornerstone of more equitable, preventive, and effective cardiovascular care.

Looking Ahead: What's Next in Cardiology-Focused RPM

I believe the pace of change in RPM is only accelerating. Even a year from now, the landscape will likely look very different. One of the biggest shifts we will see is a move away from reacting to isolated vital signs and individual data points. Instead, there will be a greater emphasis on higher-level data processing.

As we continue to collect multiple vitals per day across large patient populations, generating thousands of data points, there is a clear need for more intelligent systems. I expect to see increased use of AI-driven adaptive algorithms that can support a transition toward predictive monitoring. These tools will help us identify patterns earlier, act faster, and provide more proactive, scalable care. This evolution in RPM has the potential to significantly improve outcomes and allow clinicians to reach more patients in less time.

Alongside this technological advancement, I also see a cultural shift taking place — one that embraces innovation as a core part of patient advocacy and care delivery. We need to welcome these changes, as they are likely to enhance our ability to care for patients more effectively.

Furthermore, I believe RPM will become a more deeply embedded component of value-based care. Rather than being viewed primarily through the lens of reimbursement codes, RPM is already gaining traction across Medicare and Medicaid programs. Over time, it is likely to become a standard part of Medicare Advantage and accountable care organization frameworks. Given the accumulating evidence around improved outcomes and potential cost savings, RPM may soon become more of a requirement rather than an optional add-on. As the data continues to demonstrate its value, its role in care models will only be more central.

Arun Chandra, MD, is an electrophysiology fellow at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital and the clinical lead for Prevounce Health.

References

1. Craig W, Ohlman S. The benefits of Using Active Remot Patient Management for Enhanced Heart Failure Outcomes in Rural Cardiology Practice: Single-Site Retrospective Study. J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e49710. Accessed October 14, 2025. https://www.jmir.org/2024/1/e49710/

2. Maurer EW, Adam T, Eberly LE, Alsharit A, Billecke S, Annis T, Badlani S, Pleasants S, Melton GB. Post-Implementation Outcomes of a Remote Patient Monitoring Program After Emergency Department Discharge. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2024 Jan 25;310:509-513. Accessed October 14, 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38269861/

3. Dennis L, Koyfman I. Effect of Remote Patient Monitoring on Stage 2 Hypertension. American Journal of Managed Care. 2025 Sept 31;9:244-248. Accessed October 14, 2025. https://www.ajmc.com/view/effect-of-remote-patient-monitoring-on-stage-2-hypertension