Key result
MonCœur smartphone app fails to improve 6-month self-care vs usual care in HF patients.
Why the study?
The MonCœur smartphone application was developed to meet the specific needs of individuals living with heart failure, but its impact on self-care, quality of life, physical activity, and medication adherence needed evaluation.
Does the MonCœur mobile app improve self-care at 6 months in adults with heart failure (LVEF ≤ 40%)?
RCT (n=123)
Open-label
1:1
Yes
Does the MonCœur mobile app improve self-care at 6 months in adults with heart failure (LVEF ≤ 40%)?
The addition of a dedicated smartphone app to usual care did not significantly improve self-care at 6 months in patients with heart failure, though its impact may have been limited by moderate patient engagement.
Limits routine MonCœur app use for HF self-care; challenges efficacy assumptions and leaves longer-term activity signals open.
• We evaluated the impact of the MonCœur app versus usual care in patients with HF. • At 6 months, no significant differences were observed in self-care or quality of life. • Exploratory analyses at 12 months showed increased physical activity among app users. • Medication adherence tended to improve in the app group, suggesting a potential benefit. • Patient engagement with the app was moderate, highlighting a need for integration into usual care. Background. – The MonCœur smartphone application (app) was developed to meet the specific needs of individuals living with heart failure (HF). Aims. – To evaluate whether the MonCœur smartphone app improves self-care at 6 months in patients with HF, and to assess effects on quality of life, physical activity and medication adherence. Methods. − APPLIMONCOEUR was a prospective, multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label trial conducted in 12 HF centres in France. Adults with HF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%) hospitalized for de novo or decompensated HF, or within 3 months of discharge, were randomized 1:1 to usual care or usual care plus MonCœur mobile app. Follow-up occurred at baseline, 3, 6 (primary timepoint) and 12 months. The primary endpoint was change in self-care (European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale [EHFSCB] score) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included health-related quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire [MLWHFQ] score), weekly physical activity (minutes/week per World Health Organization categories) and medication adherence (Girerd questionnaire). Analyses were performed on the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation; between-group differences at follow-up were assessed using analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline values. Results. − Among 123 randomized patients (control n = 64; app n = 59), baseline characteristics and therapies were well balanced. At 6 months, no significant difference was found for self-care (EHFScB total P = 0.23). Quality of life improved similarly in both groups (MLWHFQ total P = 0.87). Physical activity increased in both groups, with no between-group differences at 6 months (intensive P = 0.92; moderate-to-intensive P = 0.63), but exploratory 12-month analyses favoured the app (P = 0.002 and P = 0.008, respectively). Medication adherence increased modestly in both groups (P = 0.12). Only 25/59 (42.4%) of app users were active (i.e. used the app at least 3 times during the study). Conclusion. − The MonCœur randomized trial suggests that a mobile app dedicated to HF management may contribute to behavioural changes, particularly in physical activity, although patient engagement with the app was moderate. ClinicalTrials.gov. – NCT04198779.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berthelot et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=123). MonCœur smartphone application plus usual care vs. Usual care was evaluated on Change in self-care (European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale [EHFSCB] score) at 6 months (p=0.23). The MonCœur smartphone application did not significantly improve self-care at 6 months compared to usual care in patients with heart failure (P=0.23).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: