Key result
Wearable patch ECG shows poor heart rate concordance with conventional pulse oximetry, requiring artifact rejection.
Why the study?
Wearable ECGs are increasingly applied in clinical settings, but validation methods have not been standardized.
Does an approved wearable patch ECG accurately measure heart rate compared to conventional pulse oximetry in healthy male adults?
Observational (n=55)
Yes
Does an approved wearable patch ECG accurately measure heart rate compared to conventional pulse oximetry in healthy male adults?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
An approved wearable patch ECG demonstrated poor correlation with conventional pulse oximetry and significant multicenter discrepancies in missing data, highlighting the need for standardized validation and artifact removal systems prior to clinical trial implementation.
Although wearable electrocardiograms (ECGs) are being increasingly applied in clinical settings, validation methods have not been standardized. As an exploratory evaluation, we performed a multicenter clinical trial implementing an approved wearable patch ECG. Healthy male adults were enrolled in 2 study centers. The approved ECGs were deployed for 6 hours, and pulse rates were measured independently with conventional pulse oximetry at selected time points for correlation analyses. The transmission status of the data was evaluated by heart rates and classified into valid, invalid, and missing. A total of 55 subjects (40 in center 1 and 15 in center 2) completed the study. Overall, 77.40% of heart rates were within the valid range. Invalid and missing data accounted for 1.42% and 21.23%, respectively. There were significant differences in valid and missing data between centers. The proportion of missing data in center 1 (24.77%) was more than twice center 2 (11.77%). Heart rates measured by the wearable ECG and conventional pulse oximetry showed a poor correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.0454). In conclusion, we evaluated the multicenter feasibility of implementing wearable ECGs. The results suggest that systems to mitigate multicenter discrepancies and remove artifacts should be implemented prior to performing a clinical trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05182684.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huh et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Healthy male adults (n=55). Wearable patch ECG (VP-100) vs. Conventional pulse oximetry was evaluated on Concordance of heart rates between wearable ECG and conventional pulse oximetry (ICC 0.0454). The wearable patch ECG yielded 77.4% valid data over 6 hours but showed poor concordance with conventional pulse oximetry (ICC 0.0454), highlighting the need for artifact rejection systems.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: