Key result
Upper arm Apple Watch shows moderate surgical HR monitoring reliability vs wrist devices with ~4% error.
Why the study?
Wrist-worn heart rate monitors are restricted during surgery due to sterility issues, limiting physiological stress assessment in the operating room.
Does an upper arm-worn Apple Watch provide accurate heart rate monitoring compared to a wrist-worn device for surgeons during robotic-assisted surgeries?
Observational (n=4)
Does an upper arm-worn Apple Watch provide accurate heart rate monitoring compared to a wrist-worn device for surgeons during robotic-assisted surgeries?
Effect estimate: MAPE 3.58%
p-value: p=<.001
An upper arm-worn Apple Watch provides a feasible and accurate alternative to wrist-worn monitoring for tracking surgeons' heart rates during surgery where wrist wear is restricted.
May support upper arm placement where wrist wear is restricted; leaves open validation against ECG in larger cohorts.
BACKGROUND Health care professionals, particularly those in surgical settings, face high stress levels, impacting their well-being. Traditional monitoring methods, like using Holter electrocardiogram monitors, are impractical in the operating room, limiting the assessment of physicians’ health. Wrist-worn heart rate monitors, like the Apple Watch, offer promise but are restricted in surgeries due to sterility issues. OBJECTIVE This study aims to assess the feasibility and accuracy of using an upper arm–worn Apple Watch for heart rate monitoring during robotic-assisted surgeries, comparing its performance with that of a wrist-worn device to establish a reliable alternative monitoring site. METHODS This study used 2 identical Apple Watch Series 8 devices to monitor the heart rate of surgeons during robotic-assisted surgery. Heart rate data were collected from the wrist-worn and the upper arm–worn devices. Statistical analyses included calculating the mean difference and SD of difference between the 2 devices, constructing Bland-Altman plots, assessing accuracy based on mean absolute error and mean absolute percentage error, and calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS The mean absolute errors for the whole group and for participants A, B, C, and D were 3.63, 3.58, 2.70, 3.93, and 4.28, respectively, and the mean absolute percentage errors were 3.58%, 3.34%, 2.42%, 4.58%, and 4.00%, respectively. Bland-Altman plots and scatter plots showed no systematic error when comparing the heart rate measurements obtained from the upper arm–worn and the wrist-worn Apple Watches. The intraclass correlation coefficients for participants A, B, C, and D were 0.559, 0.651, 0.508, and 0.563, respectively, with a significance level of P<.001, indicating moderate reliability. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this study suggest that the upper arm is a viable alternative site for monitoring heart rate during surgery using an Apple Watch. The agreement and reliability between the measurements obtained from the upper arm–worn and the wrist-worn devices were good, with no systematic error and a high level of accuracy. These findings have important implications for improving data collection and management of the physical and mental demands of operating room staff during surgery, where wearing a watch on the wrist may not be feasible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yamada et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Surgeons during robotic-assisted surgery (n=4). Upper arm-worn Apple Watch Series 8 vs. Wrist-worn Apple Watch Series 8 was evaluated on Feasibility and accuracy of heart rate monitoring (mean absolute error, mean absolute percentage error, intraclass correlation coefficient) (MAPE 3.58%, p=<.001). Upper arm-worn Apple Watch heart rate monitoring during surgery showed moderate reliability compared to wrist-worn devices, with a mean absolute percentage error of 3.58% (P<.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: