Using a Smartwatch to Record Precordial Electrocardiograms: A Validation Study.

Smartwatches that support the recording of a single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) are increasingly being used beyond the wrist, by placement on the ankle and on the chest. However, the reliability of frontal and precordial ECGs other than lead I is unknown. This clinical validation study assessed the reliability of an Apple Watch (AW) to obtain conventional frontal and precordial leads as compared to standard 12-lead ECGs in both subjects without known cardiac anomalies and patients with underlying heart disease. In 200 subjects (67% with ECG anomalies), a standard 12-lead ECG was performed, followed by AW recordings of the standard Einthoven leads (leads I, II, and III) and precordial leads V1, V3, and V6. Seven parameters (P, QRS, ST, and T-wave amplitudes, PR, QRS, and QT intervals) were compared through a Bland-Altman analysis, including the bias, absolute offset, and 95% limits of agreement. AW-ECGs recorded on the wrist but also beyond the wrist had similar durations and amplitudes compared to standard 12-lead ECGs. Significantly greater amplitudes were measured by the AW for R-waves in precordial leads V1, V3, and V6 (+0.094 mV, +0.149 mV, +0.129 mV, respectively, all p < 0.001), indicating a positive bias for the AW. AW can be used to record frontal, and precordial ECG leads, paving the way for broader clinical applications.

Beyond the wrist: Using a smartwatch electrocardiogram to detect electrocardiographic abnormalities.

BACKGROUND: When worn on the wrist, smartwatch electrocardiograms may provide important but incomplete information. AIMS: We sought to evaluate the added benefit of placing the smartwatch on the ankle and on the chest to diagnose various electrocardiographic abnormalities compared with 12-lead electrocardiograms. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty patients with (n=189) or without (n=71) known cardiac disorders underwent 12-lead electrocardiogram and smartwatch electrocardiogram recordings of lead I (AW-I) and of leads I and II and pseudo chest leads V1 and V6 (AW-4). AW-I and AW-4 diagnoses (three-cardiologist consensus) were compared with 12-lead electrocardiogram diagnoses (three-cardiologist consensus) to calculate sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: AW-I showed high accuracy for the diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (96% sensitivity, 91% specificity) and complete bundle branch block (85% sensitivity, 98% specificity). Compared with AW-I, AW-4 improved detection of an abnormal 12-lead electrocardiogram (91% vs. 80% sensitivity; P<0.01), atrial flutter/tachycardia (69% vs. 25% sensitivity; P=0.04), T-wave abnormalities (77% vs. 34% sensitivity; P<0.01), pathological Q-waves (41% vs. 7% sensitivity; P<0.01) and left anterior hemiblock (70% vs. 0% sensitivity; P=0.02). AW-4 also enabled better differentiation between atrioventricular block and sinus bradycardia (from 81% to 95% correct; P=0.03) and between atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter/tachycardia (from 71% to 89% correct; P=0.02), but not between bundle branch blocks (from 82% to 87% correct; P=0.57). CONCLUSIONS: A smartwatch electrocardiogram on the wrist accurately diagnoses atrial fibrillation and bundle branch block. Recording additional leads significantly improves the accuracy of detecting an abnormal electrocardiogram and repolarization changes, and also allows for better differentiation of brady- and tachyarrhythmias.