Fitbit differentiated NYHA II versus NYHA III heart failure patients by recording 8866 versus 4845 steps/day (P=0.04), while Apple Watch recorded 7027 versus 4187 steps/day (P=0.08).
Observational (n=20)
Can wrist-worn devices (Fitbit and Apple Watch) accurately track heart rate and activity in patients with heart failure?
Wrist-worn devices like Fitbit show promise for continuous outpatient monitoring and prognostication in heart failure by differentiating functional capacity through step counts.
p-value: p=0.04
BACKGROUND: Exercise capacity and raised heart rate (HR) are important prognostic markers in patients with heart failure (HF). There has been significant interest in wrist-worn devices that track activity and HR. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the feasibility and accuracy of HR and activity tracking of the Fitbit and Apple Watch. METHODS: We conducted a two-phase study assessing the accuracy of HR by Apple Watch and Fitbit in healthy participants. In Phase 1, 10 healthy individuals wore a Fitbit, an Apple Watch, and a GE SEER Light 5-electrode Holter monitor while exercising on a cycle ergometer with a 10-watt step ramp protocol from 0-100 watts. In Phase 2, 10 patients with HF and New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II-III symptoms wore wrist devices for 14 days to capture overall step count/exercise levels. RESULTS: Recorded HR by both wrist-worn devices had the best agreement with Holter readings at a workload of 60-100 watts when the rate of change of HR is less dynamic. Fitbit recorded a mean 8866 steps/day for NYHA II patients versus 4845 steps/day for NYHA III patients (P=.04). In contrast, Apple Watch recorded a mean 7027 steps/day for NYHA II patients and 4187 steps/day for NYHA III patients (P=.08). CONCLUSIONS: Both wrist-based devices are best suited for static HR rate measurements. In an outpatient setting, these devices may be adequate for average HR in patients with HF. When assessing exercise capacity, the Fitbit better differentiated patients with NYHA II versus NYHA III by the total number of steps recorded. This exploratory study indicates that these wrist-worn devices show promise in prognostication of HF in the continuous monitoring of outpatients.
Moayedi et al. (Tue,) conducted a observational in Heart failure (n=20). Wrist-worn devices (Fitbit and Apple Watch) vs. Holter monitor (Phase 1) and NYHA class comparison (Phase 2) was evaluated on Heart rate accuracy and step count/exercise levels (p=0.04). Fitbit differentiated NYHA II versus NYHA III heart failure patients by recording 8866 versus 4845 steps/day (P=0.04), while Apple Watch recorded 7027 versus 4187 steps/day (P=0.08).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: