Key result
Wearable devices demonstrated strong correlations with clinical reference standards for assessing hemodynamic parameters such as cardiac output, stroke volume, and systolic blood pressure.
Why the study?
Measuring hemodynamic parameters in cardiovascular disease requires extensive resources, and there is limited research on the accuracy of wearable devices for assessing hemodynamic function compared with clinical reference standards.
Can wearable devices accurately assess hemodynamic parameters compared to clinical reference standards in patients with cardiovascular disease?
Can wearable devices accurately assess hemodynamic parameters compared to clinical reference standards in patients with cardiovascular disease?
Wearable devices show promise for noninvasive hemodynamic assessment, but further reproducibility studies and regulatory approvals are needed before widespread clinical use.
Wearables may aid hemodynamic assessment but lack validation; leaves open routine use pending prospective trials.
Hemodynamic parameters are frequently used in patients with cardiovascular disease to assess cardiac function, monitor disease progression, propose interventions, and determine prognosis. However, they require extensive resources, including specialized equipment and trained personnel, to measure with accuracy and precision. Wearable devices such as wristwatches have been shown to assess heart function, such as heart rate and detection of irregular heart rhythms. These wearable devices have also evolved to measure hemodynamic variables in a noninvasive, dynamic, and rapid manner. However, there is limited research on the accuracy of these wearables for hemodynamic function. This review assesses wearable devices and their utility compared with a clinical reference standard for hemodynamic assessment and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of such devices. Limited studies have found that wearable devices can demonstrate strong correlations when assessing cardiac output, stroke volume, systolic blood pressure and timing intervals, and pre-ejection period. Reproducibility studies in similar clinical conditions are needed, and many of the wearable devices have not received FDA/Health Canada approval, restricting their clinical use. Our review summarizes the current research landscape of wearable devices and hemodynamic assessment and proposes a framework for future research applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2025) conducted a review in Cardiovascular disease. Wearable devices vs. Clinical reference standard was evaluated on Hemodynamic function accuracy (cardiac output, stroke volume, systolic blood pressure, timing intervals, pre-ejection period). Wearable devices demonstrated strong correlations with clinical reference standards for assessing hemodynamic parameters such as cardiac output, stroke volume, and systolic blood pressure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: