Key result
PPG smartwatches detect AF with ~66% accuracy but frequently misclassify other arrhythmias.
Why the study?
Smartwatches with PPG sensors are increasingly used for arrhythmia detection, but their diagnostic accuracy in asymptomatic patients presenting to the emergency department remains underexplored.
Do photoplethysmography-equipped smartwatches accurately detect arrhythmias compared to standard 12-lead ECG in asymptomatic patients presenting to the emergency department?
Observational (n=523)
No
Do photoplethysmography-equipped smartwatches accurately detect arrhythmias compared to standard 12-lead ECG in asymptomatic patients presenting to the emergency department?
Smartwatches demonstrate moderate utility for detecting atrial fibrillation in asymptomatic patients but have high misclassification rates for other arrhythmias and ischemic changes, highlighting the need for algorithmic improvements.
PPG smartwatches should not yet guide arrhythmia evaluation in asymptomatic ED patients; hypothesis-generating for algorithmic refinement and prospective validation.
Smartwatches equipped with photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors are increasingly used for arrhythmia detection, yet their diagnostic accuracy in asymptomatic patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) remains underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of PPG-equipped smartwatches in detecting arrhythmias among asymptomatic patients and compare smartwatch-generated alerts with standard 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECG). This retrospective observational study included 523 asymptomatic patients who presented to a tertiary care ED over a one-year period with smartwatch-generated arrhythmia alerts. All patients underwent a standard 12-lead ECG upon arrival. Arrhythmias were categorized as atrial fibrillation (AF), sinus bradycardia, bundle branch block (BBB), or ischemic changes. Diagnostic metrics including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy were calculated for each condition. Misclassification rates were analyzed to assess smartwatch limitations. Of the patients, 35.27% had abnormalities detected by ECG, including AF (18.2%), sinus bradycardia (10.9%), BBB (17.5%), and ischemic changes (25.5%). For AF, smartwatches demonstrated a sensitivity of 53.85%, specificity of 69.06%, PPV of 28.87%, and NPV of 86.52%, with an overall accuracy of 66.18%. Detection rates were lower for sinus bradycardia (sensitivity 30.36%) and ischemic changes (sensitivity 4.88%). Misclassification rates were particularly high for ischemic changes (95.7%), sinus bradycardia (70%), and BBB (75%). While smartwatches exhibit moderate utility for AF detection, their limited accuracy for other arrhythmias underscores the need for algorithmic improvements. Despite these limitations, smartwatches may serve as supplementary tools to encourage early medical attention in asymptomatic patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aydın et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Asymptomatic patients with smartwatch-generated arrhythmia alerts (n=523). Photoplethysmography (PPG)-equipped smartwatches vs. Standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy for atrial fibrillation (Accuracy 66.18%, 95% CI 59-73). Photoplethysmography-equipped smartwatches demonstrated an overall accuracy of 66.18% for detecting atrial fibrillation in asymptomatic emergency patients, but exhibited high misclassification rates for other arrhythmias such as ischemic changes and sinus bradycardia.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: