Atrial Fibrillation Detection With an Analog Smartwatch: Prospective Clinical Study and Algorithm Validation

Abstract

Background Atrial fibrillation affects approximately 4% of the world’s population and is one of the major causes of stroke, heart failure, sudden death, and cardiovascular morbidity. It can be difficult to diagnose when asymptomatic or in the paroxysmal stage, and its natural history is not well understood. New wearables and connected devices offer an opportunity to improve on this situation. Objective We aimed to validate an algorithm for the automatic detection of atrial fibrillation from a single-lead electrocardiogram taken with a smartwatch. Methods Eligible patients were recruited from 4 sites in Paris, France. Electrocardiograms (12-lead reference and single lead) were captured simultaneously. The electrocardiograms were reviewed by independent, blinded board-certified cardiologists. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm to detect atrial fibrillation and normal sinus rhythm were calculated. The quality of single-lead electrocardiograms (visibility and polarity of waves, interval durations, heart rate) was assessed in comparison with the gold standard (12-lead electrocardiogram). Results A total of 262 patients (atrial fibrillation: n=100, age: mean 74.3 years, SD 12.3; normal sinus rhythm: n=113, age: 61.8 years, SD 14.3; other arrhythmia: n=45, 66.9 years, SD 15.2; unreadable electrocardiograms: n=4) were included in the final analysis; 6.9% (18/262) were classified as Noise by the algorithm. Excluding other arrhythmias and Noise, the sensitivity for atrial fibrillation detection was 0.963 (95% CI lower bound 0.894), and the specificity was 1.000 (95% CI lower bound 0.967). Visibility and polarity accuracies were similar (1-lead electrocardiogram: P waves: 96.9%, QRS complexes: 99.2%, T waves: 91.2%; 12-lead electrocardiogram: P waves: 100%, QRS complexes: 98.8%, T waves: 99.5%). P-wave visibility accuracy was 99% (99/100) for patients with atrial fibrillation and 95.7% (155/162) for patients with normal sinus rhythm, other arrhythmias, and unreadable electrocardiograms. The absolute values of the mean differences in PR duration and QRS width were <3 ms, and more than 97% were <40 ms. The mean difference between the heart rates from the 1-lead electrocardiogram calculated by the algorithm and those calculated by cardiologists was 0.55 bpm. Conclusions The algorithm demonstrated great diagnostic performance for atrial fibrillation detection. The smartwatch’s single-lead electrocardiogram also demonstrated good quality for physician use in daily routine care. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04351386; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04351386

Accuracy and Systematic Biases of Heart Rate Measurements by Consumer-Grade Fitness Trackers in Postoperative Patients: Prospective Clinical Trial

“…In particular, wearables were used for early diagnostics in clinical studies during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 30 ], demonstrating that an infection can be detected by wearables even before a positive nose swab [ 31 ]. Techniques to detect certain cardiac arrhythmias with consumer-grade devices are currently being validated [ 32 ]. A randomized trial involving older adult patients in this area of application demonstrated that the detection rate of atrial fibrillation is increased by one order of magnitude compared to the standard care group [ 33 ].…”

Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence-Based Technologies for the Diagnosis of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Their characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Eleven studies had cohort design [11,32,40,42,45,46,48,50,54,56,57] and the rest had case-control design [10,37,41,43,44,47,49,[51][52][53]55]. The total number of participants was 6597.…”

Electrocardiogram Devices for Home Use: Technological and Clinical Scoping Review

“…Of the 36 articles, 24 (66%) evaluated the devices’ capabilities to diagnose rhythm disorders [ 15 - 17 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 29 - 35 ,​ 37 - 43 , 49 - 56 ], whereas 7 (20%) reported on capabilities to detect rhythm disorders and other heart conditions, such as cardiomyopathy, conduction disorders, and cardiac ischemia [ 18 , 22 , 23 , 28 , 36 , 45 , 57 ]. Finally, for 3 (14%) of the 22 devices, the evidence found was regarding the evaluation of the quality of the signals recorded by them [ 14 , 19 , 20 ].…”