Accuracy of wrist-worn heart rate monitors for rate control assessment in atrial fibrillation
| Autor: | Anoop N. Koshy, Omar Farouque, Jithin K. Sajeev, Andrew W. Teh, Liam Toner, Francis J. Ha, A. Al-Kaisey, Han S. Lim, Ryan J. Spencer |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Holter monitor medicine.medical_specialty 030204 cardiovascular system & hematology Wrist Wearable Electronic Devices 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Heart Rate Internal medicine Atrial Fibrillation Heart rate medicine Humans Sinus rhythm 030212 general & internal medicine Aged Aged 80 and over medicine.diagnostic_test business.industry Atrial fibrillation Middle Aged medicine.disease medicine.anatomical_structure Ambulatory Cohort Electrocardiography Ambulatory cardiovascular system Cardiology Female Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine business human activities Electrocardiography circulatory and respiratory physiology |
| Zdroj: | International Journal of Cardiology. 300:161-164 |
| ISSN: | 0167-5273 |
| Popis: | 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.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.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 (bias1 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 for140 bpm) compared to a slower HR (bias of -6 for HR range 80-100 bpm,1 for 60-80 bpm, and -1 for60 bpm).In ambulatory patients, smartwatches underestimated HR in AF particularly at HR ranges100 bpm. Further improvements in device technology are needed before integrating them into the clinical management of rate control in AF. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect