Background: Various electrocardiogram (ECG)-based devices are available for home monitoring, but the reliability in adults with CHD is unknown. Therefore, we determined the accuracy of different ECG-based devices compared to the standard 12-lead ECG in adult CHD. Methods and results: This is a single-centre, prospective, cross-sectional study in 176 consecutive adults with CHD (54% male, age 40 ± 16.6 years, 24% severe CHD, 84% previous surgery, 3% atrial fibrillation (AF), 24% right bundle branch block). Diagnostic accuracy of the Withings Scanwatch (lead I), Eko DUO (precordial lead), and Kardia 6L (six leads) was determined in comparison to the standard 12-lead ECG on several tasks: 1) AF classification (percentage correct), 2) QRS-morphology classification (percentage correct), and 3) ECG intervals calculation (QTc time ≤ 40 ms difference). Both tested AF algorithms had high accuracy (Withings: 100%, Kardia 6L: 97%) in ECGs that were classified. However, the Withings algorithm classified fewer ECGs as inconclusive (5%) compared to 31% of Kardia (p < 0.001). Physician evaluation of Kardia correctly classified QRS morphology more frequently (90% accuracy) compared to Eko DUO (84% accuracy) (p = 0.03). QTc was underestimated on all ECG-based devices (p < 0.01). QTc duration accuracy was acceptable in only 51% of Withings versus 70% Eko and 74% Kardia (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Conclusions: Although all devices demonstrated high accuracy in AF detection, the Withings automatic algorithm had fewest uninterpretable results. Kardia 6L was most accurate in overall evaluation such as QRS morphology and QTc duration. These findings can inform both patients and caregivers for optimal choice of home monitoring.
Background Various devices are available for electrocardiogram (ECG) based home monitoring and could facilitate early detection of arrhythmias in adult congenital heart disease (ACHD). However, the diagnostic accuracy of these devices in ACHD is unknown. Purpose We aimed to determine the accuracy of different ECG-based devices compared to the standard 12-lead ECG in ACHD. Methods We performed a single-center, prospective, cross-sectional study in consecutive ACHD patients. We determined diagnostic accuracy of the Withings Scanwatch (lead I), Eko DUO (precordial ECG) and Kardia 6L (six leads) compared to the 12-lead ECG on several parameters: 1) automatic atrial fibrillation (AF) detection, 2) QRS-morphology assessment (simplified into normal (<120ms), right bundle branch block (>120ms) or other wide complexes (>120ms)), and 3) conduction times (PR, QRS, QTc time). All 12-lead and device ECGs were evaluated by a single observer. Results A total of 176 patients (54% male, age 40±16.6 years, 24% severe ACHD, 84% previous correction, six patients with AF) enrolled in the study. The Withings algorithm classified only 5% of ECGs as inconclusive compared to 31% of Kardia 6L (p<0.001). Both devices had comparable sensitivity and specificity (Withings: 100% and 100% vs. Kardia 6L: 100% and 97%) in ECGs that were classified by the algorithm. On Kardia 6L, QRS morphology was correctly classified more frequently (90%) compared to EKO duo (84%) (p=0.03) and identified the P-wave more frequently (85%) (p<0.001 compared to both). Evaluation of all ECG-based devices underestimated QTc and QRS duration compared to the 12L ECG (p<0.01). Withings (49%) more frequently over- or underestimated QTc-interval by more than 40msec compared to Eko DUO (30%) and Kardia 6L (26%) (p<0.001 for both). Overall, ECG quality of Withings Scanwatch was rated worse compared to Kardia 6L and EKO duo (p<0.001 for both). Conclusions This is the first study to examine diagnostic accuracy of different ECG-based devices in ACHD. Overall, Withings Scanwatch may be the most practical choice for continuous AF screening while Kardia 6L could be preferred to accurately capture symptomatic palpitations. These findings can inform both patients and caregivers for optimal choice of home monitoring. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.