Prospective trial evaluates cardiac arrest detection in ICU patients using wearable photoplethysmography, indicating promising technology for rapid alerting.
Background Automated cardiac arrest detection and alerting using wearable technology has the potential to shorten recognition delays for unwitnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. In DETECT-1A and -1B, a photoplethysmography-based detection model was developed and validated in patients with induced cardiac arrest. This study evaluates model performance in true cardiac arrests following withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Methods Prospective, single-center study in adult ICU patients with planned withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Patients wore a photoplethysmography-wristband (CardioWatch) until death. Continuous ECG and invasive arterial pressure served as reference standards. The previously developed rule-based algorithm was refined using two training cohorts and evaluated in a separate test cohort. Endpoints were sensitivity for cardiac arrest detection and false positive alerts. Findings Forty-four patients were included (training 1: n=10; training 2: n=11; test: n=23), median age 65 years; 75% male, all with non-shockable cardiac arrest. Sensitivity for cardiac arrest detection was 100% (10/10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 66–100%) and 90% (9/10; 95% CI 54–99%), in training 1 and 2, respectively. In the test set, sensitivity was 100% (23/23; 95% CI 82–100%), with one false positive alert. Cardiac arrest was detected at a mean arterial pressure of 30 mmHg (IQR 24–35) and pulse pressure of 13 mmHg (IQR 11–19). Interpretation Cardiac arrest can be detected with high sensitivity using wrist-derived photoplethysmography, providing first evidence on model performance in true cardiac arrest, specifically in non-shockable cases. Findings support further development of wearable-based cardiac arrest detection technologies to enable earlier recognition for unwitnessed cardiac arrest. Funding Dutch Heart Foundation, Radboudumc.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edgar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: