Clinical Validation of 5 Direct-to-Consumer Wearable Smart Devices to Detect Atrial Fibrillation: BASEL Wearable Study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple smart devices capable to detect atrial fibrillation (AF) are presently available. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of AF may differ between available smart devices, and this has not yet been adequately investigated. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess the accuracy of 5 smart devices in identifying AF compared with a physician-interpreted 12-lead electrocardiogram as the reference standard in a real-world cohort of patients. METHODS: We consecutively enrolled patients presenting to a cardiology service at a tertiary referral center in a prospective, diagnostic study. RESULTS: We prospectively analyzed 201 patients (31% women, median age 66.7 years). AF was present in 62 (31%) patients. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of AF were comparable between devices: 85% and 75% for the Apple Watch 6, 85% and 75% for the Samsung Galaxy Watch 3, 58% and 75% for the Withings Scanwatch, 66% and 79% for the Fitbit Sense, and 79% and 69% for the AliveCor KardiaMobile, respectively. The rate of inconclusive tracings (the algorithm was unable to determine the heart rhythm) was 18%, 17%, 24%, 21%, and 26% for the Apple Watch 6, Samsung Galaxy Watch 3, Withings Scan Watch, Fitbit Sense, and AliveCor KardiaMobile (P < 0.01 for pairwise comparison), respectively. By manual review of inconclusive tracings, the rhythm could be determined in 955 (99%) of 969 single-lead electrocardiograms. Regarding patient acceptance, the Apple Watch was ranked first (39% of participants). CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical validation of 5 direct-to-consumer smart devices, we found differences in the amount of inconclusive tracings diminishing sensitivity and specificity of the smart devices. In a clinical setting, manual review of tracings is required in about one-fourth of cases.

Clinical Validation of Automated Corrected QT-Interval Measurements From a Single Lead Electrocardiogram Using a Novel Smartwatch.

Introduction: The Withings Scanwatch (Withings SA, Issy les Moulineaux, France) offers automated analysis of the QTc. We aimed to compare automated QTc-measurements using a single lead ECG of a novel smartwatch (Withings Scanwatch, SW-ECG) with manual-measured QTc from a nearly simultaneously recorded 12-lead ECG. Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients referred to a tertiary hospital for cardiac workup in a prospective, observational study. The QT-interval of the 12-lead ECG was manually interpreted by two blinded, independent cardiologists through the tangent-method. Bazett's formula was used to calculate QTc. Results were compared using the Bland-Altman method. Results: A total of 317 patients (48% female, mean age 63 ± 17 years) were enrolled. HR-, QRS-, and QT-intervals were automatically calculated by the SW in 295 (93%), 249 (79%), and 177 patients (56%), respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of SW-ECG for detection of QTc-intervals ≥ 460 ms (women) and ≥ 440 ms (men) as quantified by the area under the curve was 0.91 and 0.89. The Bland-Altman analysis resulted in a bias of 6.6 ms [95% limit of agreement (LoA) -59 to 72 ms] comparing automated QTc-measurements (SW-ECG) with manual QTc-measurement (12-lead ECG). In 12 patients (6.9%) the difference between the two measurements was greater than the LoA. Conclusion: In this clinical validation of a direct-to-consumer smartwatch we found fair to good agreement between automated-SW-ECG QTc-measurements and manual 12-lead-QTc measurements. The SW-ECG was able to automatically calculate QTc-intervals in one half of all assessed patients. Our work shows, that the automated algorithm of the SW-ECG needs improvement to be useful in a clinical setting.