Key result
Smartphone camera pulse-wave algorithm detects atrial fibrillation with ~95% sensitivity and specificity.
Why the study?
Does a novel smartphone app using plethysmographic sensors accurately differentiate between atrial fibrillation and sinus rhythm in patients?
Case-Control (n=80)
No
Does a novel smartphone app using plethysmographic sensors accurately differentiate between atrial fibrillation and sinus rhythm in patients?
A smartphone app using the camera and LED to detect pulse waves can accurately discriminate between atrial fibrillation and sinus rhythm with 95% sensitivity and specificity.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support smartphone AF screening in controlled settings; leaves open real-world performance and clinical adoption pending prospective trials.
AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice, and its paroxysmal nature makes its detection challenging. In this trial, we evaluated a novel App for its accuracy to differentiate between patients in AF and patients in sinus rhythm (SR) using the plethysmographic sensor of an iPhone 4S and the integrated LED only. METHODS AND RESULTS: For signal acquisition, we used an iPhone 4S, positioned with the camera lens and LED light on the index fingertip. A 5 min video file was recorded with the pulse wave extracted from the green light spectrum of the signal. RR intervals were automatically identified. For discrimination between AF and SR, we tested three different statistical methods. Normalized root mean square of successive difference of RR intervals (nRMSSD), Shannon entropy (ShE), and SD1/SD2 index extracted from a Poincaré plot. Eighty patients were included in the study (40 patients in AF and 40 patients in SR at the time of examination). For discrimination between AF and SR, ShE yielded the highest sensitivity and specificity with 85 and 95%, respectively. Applying a tachogram filter resulted in an improved sensitivity of 87.5%, when combining ShE and nRMSSD, while specificity remained stable at 95%. A combination of SD1/SD2 index and nRMSSD led to further improvement and resulted in a sensitivity and specificity of 95%. CONCLUSION: The algorithm tested reliably discriminated between SR and AF based on pulse wave signals from a smartphone camera only. Implementation of this algorithm into a smartwatch is the next logical step.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krivoshei et al. (2016) conducted a case-control in Atrial fibrillation (n=80). Smartphone camera-based pulse wave analysis (App) vs. Sinus rhythm (control group) was evaluated on Discrimination between atrial fibrillation and sinus rhythm (95% sensitivity and 95% specificity). A smartphone camera-based algorithm analyzing pulse wave signals successfully discriminated between atrial fibrillation and sinus rhythm with 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: