Follow-Up of Post Myocardial Infarction Using Telemedicine: Stakeholders’ Education, Results and Customer Satisfaction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study aimed to describe the follow-up of 110 Italian patients with post-myocardial infarction using telemedicine throughout 4 months.

I have the following comments:

1: Introduction: There are several studies investigating the efficacy and challenges of telemedicine in the management and follow-up of cardiac patients, including those with AMI. Yet, the authors ignored most of them. 

The authors may benefit from reading the work of Takahashi et al. (PMID: 36373541), Kędzierski et al. (PMID: 35208535), and Ghilencea et al. (PMID: 35935629). The 3 reviews provided several related studies and experiences.

2: The knowledge gap should be discussed to justify the paper.

3: The aim of the study should be mentioned clearly.

4: The Methods section should detail the diagnostic approaches of AMI and other chronic conditions during the baseline and follow-up.

5: The authors have mentioned several limitations. Can these limitations undermine the generalizability of the study findings?

Moderate English language editing is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors do not mention about cardiac rehabilitation for these patients - how periodically were they monitored from the rehab standpoint

Why do the authors think that there is higher adherence to medications with better long term prognosis in telemedicine compared to in person visits?

The authors need to be congratulated on the  adoption of ' theoretical practical mini course' - it might not be easy to reproduce in this a populous setting. Also, patient's literacy level is a big hindrance to adoption of such telemedicine programs. What to the authors suggest to circumvent this problem?

What was the average time frame of each telemedicine visit? 

Please describe if this was overall a cost effective measure compared to in person visits?

Overall good, need minor editing. Please ensure the same 'tense <past, present, future>' is maintained throughout the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments were addressed. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have satisfactorily revised the paper after making minor corrections