Key result
Patient-facing HeartLogic-guided mHealth pathway reduces HeartLogic alerts ~22% versus usual care.
Why the study?
Does a patient-facing HeartLogic-guided mHealth pathway improve feasibility, acceptability, and HeartLogic recovery metrics in adults with heart failure and a HeartLogic-capable implantable cardioverter-defibrillator?
RCT (n=160)
1:1
No
Does a patient-facing HeartLogic-guided mHealth pathway improve feasibility, acceptability, and HeartLogic recovery metrics in adults with heart failure and a HeartLogic-capable implantable cardioverter-defibrillator?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A patient-facing mHealth pathway guided by HeartLogic alerts is feasible, acceptable, and reduces alert burden in heart failure patients with ICDs.
BACKGROUND: Worsening heart failure is often preceded by days-to-weeks of physiological deterioration; yet, remote-monitoring alerts are clinician-facing and may not translate into timely action. The authors evaluated a patient-facing HeartLogic-guided Mobile Health (mHealth) pathway designed to augment usual care. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess feasibility, acceptability, and exploratory clinical associations of a patient-facing HeartLogic-triggered early-warning pathway. METHODS: This single-center, pragmatic, randomized pilot trial recruited adults with heart failure and a HeartLogic-capable implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, randomized 1:1 to usual care or usual care plus weekly patient-facing HeartLogic-triggered notifications via an mHealth platform with symptom screening and self-care guidance. Coprimary outcomes were feasibility/acceptability and HeartLogic recovery metrics. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 24 months. RESULTS: A total of 160 participants were randomized (81 intervention, 79 control); median follow-up was 1.82 years. Recruitment reached 160 of 200 participants (80% of target), retention was high, and mean Mobile App Usability Questionnaire scores demonstrated acceptability throughout follow-up. Engagement was high with 80% symptom-screen completion during alerts. Compared with usual care, the intervention was associated with lower HeartLogic alert incidence (IRR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.62-0.99]) and 13% more monitored days outside alert state (RR: 1.13 [95% CI: 1.02-1.25]), whereas time to alert normalization was similar. The traffic-light pathway supported risk-tiered patient response, with greater self-reported health care contact following red than amber alerts. Exploratory clinical outcomes were directionally favorable, but the study was not powered for these endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized pilot trial, a patient-facing HeartLogic-guided mHealth pathway was feasible, acceptable, and associated with lower alert burden, supporting evaluation in a larger multicenter trial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Assad et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in heart failure (n=160). patient-facing HeartLogic-guided mHealth pathway vs. usual care was evaluated on feasibility/acceptability and HeartLogic recovery metrics (IRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.99). A patient-facing HeartLogic-guided mHealth pathway was feasible, acceptable, and associated with lower HeartLogic alert incidence compared with usual care (IRR 0.78; 95% CI 0.62-0.99).
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: