Key result
A wrist-type pulse wave monitor demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for detecting atrial fibrillation, yielding a sensitivity of 0.97 and a specificity of 1.00.
Why the study?
Does a wrist-type pulse wave monitor accurately detect atrial fibrillation compared to sinus rhythm?
Case-Control (n=59)
Does a wrist-type pulse wave monitor accurately detect atrial fibrillation compared to sinus rhythm?
A wrist-type pulse wave monitor utilizing a specific irregular pulse peak algorithm demonstrated excellent sensitivity and specificity for detecting atrial fibrillation.
We evaluated the diagnostic value of atrial fibrillation (AF) measured by a wrist-type pulse wave monitor in this case-control study. Six serial pulse wave values (three in the left and three in the right wrist) were measured using a wrist-type monitor in 29 AF patients and 30 subjects with sinus rhythm. We defined "monitor AF in irregular pulse peak (IPP) 15/20/25" as follows: (a) IPP: |interval of pulse peak - the average of the interval of the pulse peak| ≥ the average of the interval of the pulse peak × 15/20/25%; (b) irregular heartbeat (IHB): beats of IPP ≥ total pulse × 20%; and (c) monitor AF: ≥4 IHBs of the six pulse wave measurements. In IPP 15, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 and 1.00, respectively. Pulse wave analysis by a wrist-type monitor was shown to have high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kabutoya et al. (2019) conducted a case-control in Atrial fibrillation (n=59). Wrist-type pulse wave monitor vs. Sinus rhythm was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detecting atrial fibrillation (Sensitivity 0.97, Specificity 1.00). A wrist-type pulse wave monitor demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for detecting atrial fibrillation, yielding a sensitivity of 0.97 and a specificity of 1.00.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: