Keith Feldman1,2, Ray G Duncan3,4, An Nguyen5, Galen Cook-Wiens5, Yaron Elad3,5, Teryl Nuckols6, Joshua M Pevnick3,6. 1. Division of Health Services and Outcomes Research, Children's Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri, USA. 3. Enterprise Information Services, Cedars-Sinai Health System, Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 5. Department of Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Utilizing integrated electronic health record (EHR) and consumer-grade wearable device data, we sought to provide real-world estimates for the proportion of wearers that would likely benefit from anticoagulation if an atrial fibrillation (AFib) diagnosis was made based on wearable device data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study utilized EHR and Apple Watch data from an observational cohort of 1802 patients at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center who linked devices to the EHR between April 25, 2015 and November 16, 2018. Using these data, we estimated the number of high-risk patients who would be actionable for anticoagulation based on (1) medical history, (2) Apple Watch wear patterns, and (3) AFib risk, as determined by an existing validated model. RESULTS: Based on the characteristics of this cohort, a mean of 0.25% (n = 4.58, 95% CI, 2.0-8.0) of patients would be candidates for new anticoagulation based on AFib identified by their Apple Watch. Using EHR data alone, we find that only approximately 36% of the 1802 patients (n = 665.93, 95% CI, 626.0-706.0) would have anticoagulation recommended even after a new AFib diagnosis. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: These data suggest that there is limited benefit to detect and treat AFib with anticoagulation among this cohort, but that accessing clinical and demographic data from the EHR could help target devices to the patients with the highest potential for benefit. Future research may analyze this relationship at other sites and among other wearable users, including among those who have not linked devices to their EHR.
OBJECTIVE: Utilizing integrated electronic health record (EHR) and consumer-grade wearable device data, we sought to provide real-world estimates for the proportion of wearers that would likely benefit from anticoagulation if an atrial fibrillation (AFib) diagnosis was made based on wearable device data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study utilized EHR and Apple Watch data from an observational cohort of 1802 patients at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center who linked devices to the EHR between April 25, 2015 and November 16, 2018. Using these data, we estimated the number of high-risk patients who would be actionable for anticoagulation based on (1) medical history, (2) Apple Watch wear patterns, and (3) AFib risk, as determined by an existing validated model. RESULTS: Based on the characteristics of this cohort, a mean of 0.25% (n = 4.58, 95% CI, 2.0-8.0) of patients would be candidates for new anticoagulation based on AFib identified by their Apple Watch. Using EHR data alone, we find that only approximately 36% of the 1802 patients (n = 665.93, 95% CI, 626.0-706.0) would have anticoagulation recommended even after a new AFib diagnosis. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: These data suggest that there is limited benefit to detect and treat AFib with anticoagulation among this cohort, but that accessing clinical and demographic data from the EHR could help target devices to the patients with the highest potential for benefit. Future research may analyze this relationship at other sites and among other wearable users, including among those who have not linked devices to their EHR.
Authors: Ying Xian; Emily C O'Brien; Li Liang; Haolin Xu; Lee H Schwamm; Gregg C Fonarow; Deepak L Bhatt; Eric E Smith; DaiWai M Olson; Lesley Maisch; Deidre Hannah; Brianna Lindholm; Barbara L Lytle; Michael J Pencina; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric D Peterson Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mita Sanghavi Goel; Tiffany L Brown; Adam Williams; Romana Hasnain-Wynia; Jason A Thompson; David W Baker Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jonas Oldgren; Jeff S Healey; Michael Ezekowitz; Patrick Commerford; Alvaro Avezum; Prem Pais; Jun Zhu; Petr Jansky; Alben Sigamani; Carlos A Morillo; Lisheng Liu; Albertino Damasceno; Alex Grinvalds; Juliet Nakamya; Paul A Reilly; Katalin Keltai; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Afzal Hussein Yusufali; Eiichi Watanabe; Lars Wallentin; Stuart J Connolly; Salim Yusuf Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marco V Perez; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Haley Hedlin; John S Rumsfeld; Ariadna Garcia; Todd Ferris; Vidhya Balasubramanian; Andrea M Russo; Amol Rajmane; Lauren Cheung; Grace Hung; Justin Lee; Peter Kowey; Nisha Talati; Divya Nag; Santosh E Gummidipundi; Alexis Beatty; Mellanie True Hills; Sumbul Desai; Christopher B Granger; Manisha Desai; Mintu P Turakhia Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Wern Yew Ding; José Miguel Rivera-Caravaca; Francisco Marín; Guowei Li; Vanessa Roldán; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Alvaro Alonso; Bouwe P Krijthe; Thor Aspelund; Katherine A Stepas; Michael J Pencina; Carlee B Moser; Moritz F Sinner; Nona Sotoodehnia; João D Fontes; A Cecile J W Janssens; Richard A Kronmal; Jared W Magnani; Jacqueline C Witteman; Alanna M Chamberlain; Steven A Lubitz; Renate B Schnabel; Sunil K Agarwal; David D McManus; Patrick T Ellinor; Martin G Larson; Gregory L Burke; Lenore J Launer; Albert Hofman; Daniel Levy; John S Gottdiener; Stefan Kääb; David Couper; Tamara B Harris; Elsayed Z Soliman; Bruno H C Stricker; Vilmundur Gudnason; Susan R Heckbert; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Kirk D Wyatt; Lisa R Poole; Aidan F Mullan; Stephen L Kopecky; Heather A Heaton Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 4.497