Key result
The Fitbit Charge 5 accurately assessed heart rate during sinus rhythm (CCC 0.791) but had poor accuracy during atrial fibrillation (CCC 0.211), with 34% sensitivity and 100% specificity for AF.
Why the study?
Consumer smartwatches may be a helpful tool to screen for AF, but validation studies in older stroke patients remain scarce.
Does the Fitbit Charge 5 smartwatch accurately measure resting heart rate and detect atrial fibrillation compared to continuous bedside ECG monitoring in stroke patients?
RCT (n=70)
Does the Fitbit Charge 5 smartwatch accurately measure resting heart rate and detect atrial fibrillation compared to continuous bedside ECG monitoring in stroke patients?
The Fitbit Charge 5 smartwatch accurately measures heart rate in stroke patients during sinus rhythm but has poor accuracy during atrial fibrillation, with low sensitivity but high specificity for AF detection.
Stroke units should not adopt Fitbit for AF screening; hypothesis-generating for wearable validation in arrhythmia cohorts.
(1) Background: Consumer smartwatches may be a helpful tool to screen for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, validation studies on older stroke patients remain scarce. The aim of this pilot study from RCT NCT05565781 was to validate the resting heart rate (HR) measurement and the irregular rhythm notification (IRN) feature in stroke patients in sinus rhythm (SR) and AF. (2) Methods: Resting clinical HR measurements (every 5 min) were assessed using continuous bedside ECG monitoring (CEM) and the Fitbit Charge 5 (FC5). IRNs were gathered after at least 4 h of CEM. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Bland-Altman analysis, and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) were used for agreement and accuracy assessment. (3) Results: In all, 526 individual pairs of measurements were obtained from 70 stroke patients-age 79.4 years (SD ± 10.2), 63% females, BMI 26.3 (IQ 22.2-30.5), and NIHSS score 8 (IQR 1.5-20). The agreement between the FC5 and CEM was good (CCC 0.791) when evaluating paired HR measurements in SR. Meanwhile, the FC5 provided weak agreement (CCC 0.211) and low accuracy (MAPE 16.48%) when compared to CEM recordings in AF. Regarding the accuracy of the IRN feature, analysis found a low sensitivity (34%) and high specificity (100%) for detecting AF. (4) Conclusion: The FC5 was accurate at assessing the HR during SR, but the accuracy during AF was poor. In contrast, the IRN feature was acceptable for guiding decisions regarding AF screening in stroke patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meza et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Stroke (n=70). Fitbit Charge 5 (FC5) vs. Continuous bedside ECG monitoring (CEM) was evaluated on Agreement and accuracy of resting heart rate measurement and irregular rhythm notification (CCC 0.791 for SR, CCC 0.211 for AF). The Fitbit Charge 5 accurately assessed heart rate during sinus rhythm (CCC 0.791) but had poor accuracy during atrial fibrillation (CCC 0.211), with 34% sensitivity and 100% specificity for AF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: