Why the study?
Post-cardiac surgery atrial fibrillation and flutter are common and linked to adverse outcomes extending past discharge, but whether PPG-based smartphone monitoring after discharge improves management is unknown.
Does smartphone-based photoplethysmography rhythm monitoring improve atrial fibrillation management in patients discharged following cardiac surgery?
Does smartphone-based photoplethysmography rhythm monitoring improve atrial fibrillation management in patients discharged following cardiac surgery?
Smartphone-based PPG monitoring significantly increased the detection of atrial fibrillation and flutter, leading to more frequent optimization of AF management in patients recently discharged after cardiac surgery.
Supports smartphone PPG monitoring to increase post-cardiac surgery AF interventions; extends RCT evidence from detection to management optimization.
AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) after cardiac surgery are common and associated with adverse outcomes. The increased risk related to AF or AFL may extend beyond discharge. This study aims to determine whether photoplethysmography (PPG)-based smartphone monitoring to detect AF or AFL after hospital discharge following cardiac surgery improves AF management. METHODS AND RESULTS: The intervention group performed 1 min rhythm checks three times daily using a smartphone-based PPG application during 6 weeks after hospitalization for cardiac surgery. The primary outcome involved AF management interventions by independent physicians, including initiation of oral anticoagulation (OAC), direct cardioversion, and up-titration or initiation of antiarrhythmic drugs. The study included 450 patients [mean (SD) age, 64.1 (9.2) years; 96 women (21.3%); 130 patients with AF history (28.9%); median (IQR) CHA2DS2-VASc score, 2 (1-3)], of whom 238 were randomized to PPG-based monitoring and 212 to usual care. AF/AFL was detected with PPG or electrocardiography in 44 patients (18.5%) in the monitoring group and 4 patients (1.9%) in the usual care group (OR 11.8; 95% CI, 4.2-33.3; P < 0.001); these were new detections in, respectively, 22 patients (9.2%) and 1 patient (0.5%) (OR 21.3; 95% CI, 2.9-166.7; P = 0.003). AF management interventions occurred in 24 patients (10.1%) in the monitoring group compared to 5 patients (2.4%) in the usual care group [odds ratio (OR), 5.1; 95% CI, 1.8-14.4; P = 0.002]. CONCLUSION: In unselected patients discharged home following cardiac surgery, PPG-based smartphone monitoring revealed significantly more AF/AFL which led to significantly more optimization of AF management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gruwez et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: