Elbey Mehmet Ali, Young Daisy, Kanuri Sri Harsha, Akella Krishna, Murtaza Ghulam, Garg Jalaj, Atkins Donita, Bommana Sudha, Sharma Sharan, Turagam Mohit, Pillarisetti Jayashree, Park Peter, Tummala Rangarao, Shah Alap, Koerber Scott, Shivamurthy Poojita, Vasamreddy Chandrasekhar, Gopinathannair Rakesh, Lakkireddy Dhanunjaya
Arrhythmia Research Fellow, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park, Kansas.
Department of Internal Medicine, Stony Brook Southampton Hospital, Southampton, NY.
J Atr Fibrillation. 2021 Apr 30;13(6):20200446. doi: 10.4022/jafib.20200446. eCollection 2021 Apr-May.
Smartphone technologies have been recently developed to assess heart rate and rhythm, but their role in accurately detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unknown.
We sought to perform a meta-analysis using prospective studies comparing Smartwatch technology with current monitoring standards for AF detection (ECG, Holter, Patch Monitor, ILR).
We performed a comprehensive literature search for prospective studies comparing Smartwatch technology simultaneously with current monitoring standards (ECG, Holter, and Patch monitor) for AF detection since inception to November 25th, 2019. The outcome studied was the accuracy of AF detection. Accuracy was determined with concomitant usage of ECG monitoring, Holter monitoring, loop recorder, or patch monitoring.
A total of 9 observational studies were included comparing smartwatch technology, 3 using single-lead ECG monitoring, and six studies using photoplethysmography with routine AF monitoring strategies. A total of 1559 patients were enrolled (mean age 63.5 years, 39.5% had an AF history). The mean monitoring time was 75.6 days. Smartwatch was non-inferior to composite ECG monitoring strategies (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 - 1.21, p=0.37), composite 12 lead ECG/Holter monitoring (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 - 1.30, p=0.57) and patch monitoring (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.84 - 1.94, p=0.24) for AF detection. The sensitivity and specificity for AF detection using a smartwatch was 95% and 94%, respectively.
Smartwatch based single-lead ECG and photoplethysmography appear to be reasonable alternatives for AF monitoring.
智能手机技术最近已被开发用于评估心率和心律,但其在准确检测心房颤动(AF)方面的作用仍不明确。
我们试图通过前瞻性研究进行一项荟萃分析,比较智能手表技术与当前用于AF检测的监测标准(心电图、动态心电图、贴片监测仪、植入式循环记录仪)。
我们进行了全面的文献检索,以查找自开始至2019年11月25日将智能手表技术与当前用于AF检测的监测标准(心电图、动态心电图和贴片监测仪)同时进行比较的前瞻性研究。所研究的结果是AF检测的准确性。准确性通过同时使用心电图监测、动态心电图监测、环路记录仪或贴片监测来确定。
总共纳入了9项比较智能手表技术的观察性研究,3项使用单导联心电图监测,6项使用光电容积脉搏波描记术与常规AF监测策略。总共招募了1559名患者(平均年龄63.5岁,39.5%有AF病史)。平均监测时间为75.6天。在AF检测方面,智能手表不劣于综合心电图监测策略(比值比1.06,95%可信区间0.93 - 1.21,p = 0.37)、综合12导联心电图/动态心电图监测(比值比0.90,95%可信区间0.62 - 1.30,p = 0.57)和贴片监测(比值比1.28,95%可信区间0.84 - 1.94,p = 0.24)。使用智能手表进行AF检测的敏感性和特异性分别为95%和94%。
基于智能手表的单导联心电图和光电容积脉搏波描记术似乎是AF监测的合理替代方法。