Why the study?
Consumer cardiovascular monitoring devices are increasingly adopted by the public, but whether they are accurate, validated, and suitable for clinicians to make management decisions requires assessment.
Are wearable technologies accurate, validated, and suitable for professionals to make management decisions in cardiovascular disease?
Are wearable technologies accurate, validated, and suitable for professionals to make management decisions in cardiovascular disease?
Wearable technologies have the potential to improve healthcare and support research when used correctly as diagnostic and monitoring tools for cardiovascular diseases.
Wearables may aid CVD monitoring when validated; leaves open suitability for routine clinical decisions.
The past decade has seen a dramatic rise in consumer technologies able to monitor a variety of cardiovascular parameters. Such devices initially recorded markers of exercise, but now include physiological and health-care focused measurements. The public are keen to adopt these devices in the belief that they are useful to identify and monitor cardiovascular disease. Clinicians are therefore often presented with health app data accompanied by a diverse range of concerns and queries. Herein, we assess whether these devices are accurate, their outputs validated, and whether they are suitable for professionals to make management decisions. We review underpinning methods and technologies and explore the evidence supporting the use of these devices as diagnostic and monitoring tools in hypertension, arrhythmia, heart failure, coronary artery disease, pulmonary hypertension, and valvular heart disease. Used correctly, they might improve health care and support research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Williams et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: