A comparison of over-the-counter available smartwatches and devices for electrocardiogram based detection of atrial fibrillation. (14th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Scholten, J; Mahes, A; De Groot, J R; Winter, M M; Zwinderman, A H; Keijer, J T; Minneboo, M; Horsthuis, T; Jansen, W P J; Bokma, J P
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 42(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-10-14
• Subjects: Electrocardiogram (ECG) and Arrhythmia Analysis; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.3047
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: There is an increasing number of smartwatches and devices commercially available that can generate and automatically interpret an electrocardiogram (ECG). Such devices have an enormous potential to improve population screening and telemonitoring of atrial fibrillation (AF). Purpose: There is limited data on the sensitivity, specificity and interpretability of these devices and comparative studies are lacking. Our purpose was to compare three frequently used devices for AF detection. Methods: We performed a single-center, prospective study in consecutive patients with AF presenting for electrical cardioversion (ECV). We collected a standard 12-lead ECG recording immediately followed by four times 30 seconds of ECG recordings from different devices for every patient prior to the ECV. These paired measurements were considered simultaneous. If the ECV was performed, the same measurements were repeated afterwards. The standard 12L-ECGs were interpreted by a cardiologist and used as golden standard for heart rhythm. The different devices used for the 30 second ECGs were: Withings Move ECG (lead I), Apple Watch series 5 (lead I), Kardia Mobile 6L (six leads) and Withings/Apple (1:1 ratio) on left knee (lead II). Sensitivity and specificity were determined for each AF detection algorithm excluding patients with atrial flutter (AFL) or uninterpretable ECGs. In addition, proportions of uninterpretable ECGs were determined including all patients and including only patients with sinus rhythm (SR) and compared between devices using McNemar's test. Results: A total of 220 patients were included (age 70±10 years, female 35%, first ECV 44%) and in total 415 12-lead ECGs were performed (45% SR, 45% AF, 10% AFL). The sensitivity/specificity were overall similar for all devices (Withings 98%/95%, Apple 94%/98%, Kardia 99%/91%. P>0.05 for all). In detail, Kardia was the most sensitive test with highest proportion of suspected AF (57%) whereas Apple was the most specific, as shown by the highest proportion of normal heart rate results by the device (55%, P=0.003 compared to Kardia (43%)). Overall, Withings, Apple and Kardia had a comparable proportion of uninterpretable ECGs (20%, 20%, 24%, respectively. P>0.05 for all). Lead II had higher proportion of uninterpretable ECGs (32%, p<0.01 compared to all). More specifically, Kardia had a higher rate of uninterpretable ECGs in those with SR (P<0.05 compared to Withings (lead I) and Apple (lead I)). Conclusion: In all devices, we found sensitivity/specificity for AF detection between 91%-99%, better than previous studies reported, and 20–24% of uninterpretable ECGs. Kardia was the most sensitive device, but less useful to rule out atrial fibrillation whereas Apple had numerically highest specificity. We aim to further evaluate both cardiologist interpretation and accuracy of atrial flutter detection using different leads to inform clinical use. FUNDunding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Tergooi Cardiology department, J.P. Bokma was supported with a research grant by Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences