INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation is often asymptomatic and un-diagnosed in the community resulting in an increased risk of heart failure and stroke to those patients. We evaluated the effectiveness, tolerability, and accuracy of a novel six-channel electrocardiogram digital-health screening device, the RhythmPad, for the detection of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Seven hundred and fifty-two participants attending the cardiology department were recruited. Two recordings were taken-a six-lead electrocardiogram using the RhythmPad device and a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram. Recorded traces were analyzed by two blinded cardiologists. The computer-generated automated diagnostic reports from both systems were also compared. Post-participation feedback was obtained from study participants using a three-part questionnaire. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the six-lead electrocardiogram compared to the 12-lead electrocardiogram, analyzed by two blinded cardiologists, for the detection of normal sinus rhythm was 95.9%, with a specificity of 97.2%. The sensitivity for the detection of atrial fibrillation using the six-lead ECG was 93.4%, with specificity 96.8%. The six-lead automated diagnostic report had a sensitivity and specificity of 97.5% and 98.6%, respectively, for correctly diagnosing normal sinus rhythm. For the correct diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, the six-lead automated diagnostic report had a sensitivity and specificity of 95.4% and 98.8%, respectively. A total of 95.4% of participants found RhythmPad to be comfortable, with only 0.5% preferring the 12-lead ECG device in comparison to six-lead ECG acquisitions. CONCLUSION: The RhythmPad digital health device and its automated diagnostic report were highly accurate in detecting atrial fibrillation when compared to a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram.
INTRODUCTION:Atrial fibrillation is often asymptomatic and un-diagnosed in the community resulting in an increased risk of heart failure and stroke to those patients. We evaluated the effectiveness, tolerability, and accuracy of a novel six-channel electrocardiogram digital-health screening device, the RhythmPad, for the detection of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Seven hundred and fifty-two participants attending the cardiology department were recruited. Two recordings were taken-a six-lead electrocardiogram using the RhythmPad device and a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram. Recorded traces were analyzed by two blinded cardiologists. The computer-generated automated diagnostic reports from both systems were also compared. Post-participation feedback was obtained from study participants using a three-part questionnaire. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the six-lead electrocardiogram compared to the 12-lead electrocardiogram, analyzed by two blinded cardiologists, for the detection of normal sinus rhythm was 95.9%, with a specificity of 97.2%. The sensitivity for the detection of atrial fibrillation using the six-lead ECG was 93.4%, with specificity 96.8%. The six-lead automated diagnostic report had a sensitivity and specificity of 97.5% and 98.6%, respectively, for correctly diagnosing normal sinus rhythm. For the correct diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, the six-lead automated diagnostic report had a sensitivity and specificity of 95.4% and 98.8%, respectively. A total of 95.4% of participants found RhythmPad to be comfortable, with only 0.5% preferring the 12-lead ECG device in comparison to six-lead ECG acquisitions. CONCLUSION: The RhythmPad digital health device and its automated diagnostic report were highly accurate in detecting atrial fibrillation when compared to a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram.