Ahmed M Al-Kaisey1, Anoop N Koshy2, Francis J Ha1, Ryan Spencer1, Liam Toner1, Jithin K Sajeev3, Andrew W Teh4, Omar Farouque5, Han S Lim6. 1. Department of Cardiology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia. 2. Department of Cardiology, Eastern Health, Boxhill, Victoria, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Department of Cardiology, Eastern Health, Boxhill, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Cardiology, Eastern Health, Boxhill, Victoria, Australia; Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Cardiology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Department of Cardiology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: lim.h@unimelb.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Wrist-worn heart rate (HR) monitors are increasingly popular. A paucity of data exists on their accuracy in atrial fibrillation (AF) in ambulatory patients. We sought to assess the HR accuracy of two commercially available smart watches [SW] (Fitbit Charge HR [FB] and Apple Watch Series 3 [AW]) compared with Holter monitoring in an ambulant patient cohort. METHODS:Thirty-two participants ≥18 years referred for 24-hour Holter monitoring were prospectively recruited. Each participant was randomly allocated to wear either a FB or AW along with their Holter monitor. RESULTS: Across all devices, 53,288 heart rate values were analysed from 32 participants. Twenty wore the AW (17 had persistent AF and 3 had sinus rhythm [SR]) while 12 participants wore the FB (9 in persistent AF and 3 in SR). Participants in SR demonstrated strong agreement compared to Holter monitoring (bias <1 beat, limits of agreement [LoA] -11 to 11 beats). In AF, both devices underestimated HR measurements (bias -9 beats, LoA -41 to 23). The degree of underestimation was more pronounced when HR > 100 bpm (bias of -28 beats for HR range 100-120 bpm, -48 for 120-140 bpm, and -69 for >140 bpm) compared to a slower HR (bias of -6 for HR range 80-100 bpm, <1 for 60-80 bpm, and -1 for <60 bpm). CONCLUSION: In ambulatory patients, smartwatches underestimated HR in AF particularly at HR ranges >100 bpm. Further improvements in device technology are needed before integrating them into the clinical management of rate control in AF.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Wrist-worn heart rate (HR) monitors are increasingly popular. A paucity of data exists on their accuracy in atrial fibrillation (AF) in ambulatory patients. We sought to assess the HR accuracy of two commercially available smart watches [SW] (Fitbit Charge HR [FB] and Apple Watch Series 3 [AW]) compared with Holter monitoring in an ambulant patient cohort. METHODS: Thirty-two participants ≥18 years referred for 24-hour Holter monitoring were prospectively recruited. Each participant was randomly allocated to wear either a FB or AW along with their Holter monitor. RESULTS: Across all devices, 53,288 heart rate values were analysed from 32 participants. Twenty wore the AW (17 had persistent AF and 3 had sinus rhythm [SR]) while 12 participants wore the FB (9 in persistent AF and 3 in SR). Participants in SR demonstrated strong agreement compared to Holter monitoring (bias <1 beat, limits of agreement [LoA] -11 to 11 beats). In AF, both devices underestimated HR measurements (bias -9 beats, LoA -41 to 23). The degree of underestimation was more pronounced when HR > 100 bpm (bias of -28 beats for HR range 100-120 bpm, -48 for 120-140 bpm, and -69 for >140 bpm) compared to a slower HR (bias of -6 for HR range 80-100 bpm, <1 for 60-80 bpm, and -1 for <60 bpm). CONCLUSION: In ambulatory patients, smartwatches underestimated HR in AF particularly at HR ranges >100 bpm. Further improvements in device technology are needed before integrating them into the clinical management of rate control in AF.
Authors: Sanchit Kumar; Angela M Victoria-Castro; Hannah Melchinger; Kyle D O'Connor; Mitchell Psotka; Nihar R Desai; Tariq Ahmad; F Perry Wilson Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2022-09-09 Impact factor: 3.216
Authors: Guillaume Chevance; Natalie M Golaszewski; Elizabeth Tipton; Eric B Hekler; Matthew Buman; Gregory J Welk; Kevin Patrick; Job G Godino Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 4.947
Authors: Libo Wang; Kyron Nielsen; Joshua Goldberg; Jeremiah R Brown; John S Rumsfeld; Benjamin A Steinberg; Yue Zhang; Michael E Matheny; Rashmee U Shah Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-05-03