Key result
Kardia outperforms Veroval in detecting atrial fibrillation, achieving ~67% sensitivity.
Why the study?
The ESC advises opportunistic AF screening in individuals aged 65 years or older, prompting a comparison of the feasibility of two smartphone-based ECG systems to detect AF in patients without prior arrhythmia.
Does Kardia Mobile compared to Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 improve the detection of atrial fibrillation in pharmacy patients aged ≥ 65 years?
Cross-Sectional (n=417)
Yes
Does Kardia Mobile compared to Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 improve the detection of atrial fibrillation in pharmacy patients aged ≥ 65 years?
Absolute Event Rate: 66.7% vs 10%
Opportunistic AF screening in pharmacies using mobile devices is feasible, with the Kardia application demonstrating higher sensitivity and user-friendliness compared to the Veroval device.
Supports Kardia for pharmacy AF screening; leaves open prospective validation before routine adoption.
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the leading cause of stroke. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) advises opportunistic AF screening among patients aged ≥ 65 years. Considering this, the aim herein, was compare the feasibility of two different systems of smartphone-based electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings to identify AF among those without a previous arrhythmia history. METHODS: Prospective AF screening was conducted at six pharmacies using Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1. A single-lead ECG was acquired by the placement of fingers on the pads. A cardiologist evaluated findings from both devices. RESULTS: Atrial fibrillation was identified in 3.60% and previously unknown AF was detected in 1.92% of the study participants. Sensitivity and specificity of the Kardia application in detecting AF were 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.4-88.2%) and 98.5% (95% CI 96.7-99.5%), and for Veroval 10.0% (95% CI 0.23-44.5%) and 94.96% (95% CI 92.15-96.98%), accordingly. Inter-rater agreement was k = 0.088 (95% CI 1.59-16.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Mobile devices can detect AF, but each finding must be verified by a professional. The Kardia application appeared to be more user-friendly than Veroval. Cardiovascular screening using mobile devices is feasible at pharmacies. Hence it might be considered for routine use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaprutko et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Atrial fibrillation (n=417). Kardia Mobile vs. Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 was evaluated on Sensitivity in detecting atrial fibrillation. The Kardia application demonstrated a sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 98.5% in detecting atrial fibrillation, compared to a sensitivity of 10.0% and specificity of 94.96% for Veroval.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: