Aims Pre‐clinical congestion markers of worsening heart failure (HF) can be monitored by devices and may support the management of patients with HF. We aimed to assess whether congestion‐guided HF management according to device‐based remote monitoring strategies is more effective than standard therapy. Methods and results A comprehensive literature research for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing device‐based remote monitoring strategies for congestion‐guided HF management versus standard therapy was performed on PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Poisson regression model with random study effects. The primary outcome was a composite of all‐cause death and HF hospitalizations. Secondary endpoints included the individual components of the primary outcome. A total of 4347 patients from eight RCTs were included. Findings varied according to the type of parameters monitored. Compared with standard therapy, haemodynamic‐guided strategy (4 trials, 2224 patients, 12‐month follow‐up) reduced the risk of the primary composite outcome (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70–0.89) and HF hospitalizations (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67–0.86), without a significant impact on all‐cause death (IRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72–1.21). In contrast, impedance‐guided strategy (4 trials, 2123 patients, 19‐month follow‐up) did not provide significant benefits. Conclusion Haemodynamic‐guided HF management is associated with better clinical outcomes as compared to standard clinical care. Summary effect estimates for different strategies of guided management versus standard therapy related to pathogenesis of worsening heart failure. CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio.