We have located links that may give you full text access.
Accuracy of wrist-worn heart rate monitors for rate control assessment in atrial fibrillation.
International Journal of Cardiology 2020 Februrary 2
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.
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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System: From History to Practice of a Secular Topic.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 5
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app