Key result
Continuous pulse wave monitoring accurately detected atrial fibrillation compared to Holter ECG, demonstrating a high patient-average specificity of 96.4% and negative predictive value of 95.1%.
Why the study?
Does a wristwatch-based continuous pulse wave monitor accurately detect atrial fibrillation compared to Holter ECG in patients undergoing electrophysiological study?
Observational (n=136)
Does a wristwatch-based continuous pulse wave monitor accurately detect atrial fibrillation compared to Holter ECG in patients undergoing electrophysiological study?
A wristwatch-based continuous pulse wave monitor demonstrated high specificity and negative predictive value for detecting atrial fibrillation, suggesting utility in confirming freedom from AF.
May support ruling out AF with wristwatch monitoring; leaves open prospective validation before broader adoption.
BACKGROUND: Detecting asymptomatic and undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasingly important. Recently, we developed a wristwatch-based pulse wave monitor (PWM; Seiko Epson, Japan) capable of long-term recording, with an automatic diagnosis algorithm that uses frequency-based pulse wave analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of continuous pulse wave monitoring for detection of AF. METHODS: During the electrophysiological study (EPS) in patients with AF, simultaneous pulse wave monitoring and Holter electrocardiograms (ECG) were recorded (n = 136, mean age 62.7 ± 10.9 years). The diagnostic accuracy of the PWM for AF was compared to the Holter ECG diagnosis. Standard performance metrics (sensitivity [Se], specificity [Sp], positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) were calculated. The duration-based measurements were based on the diagnosis concordance ratios for the duration of time between diagnosis detected by the PWM and true diagnosis by the Holter ECG (AF or not AF). The episode-based performance metrics were based on the proportion of episodes appropriately detected with the PWM relative to episodes determined by the Holter ECG. RESULTS: The total recording time was 1,542,770 s (AF: 270,945 s). A high diagnostic Sp (patient average: 96.4%, cumulative: 97.7%) and NPV (patient average: 95.1%, cumulative: 96.8%) were obtained in the duration-based results. In the episode-based metrics, all indices significantly improved with longer AF episode durations. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous pulse wave monitoring can provide accurate and dependable information to aid in AF diagnosis. A high validity in confirming freedom from AF was shown by a high NPV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kashiwa et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=136). Continuous pulse wave monitoring vs. Holter ECG was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy for atrial fibrillation (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV). Continuous pulse wave monitoring accurately detected atrial fibrillation compared to Holter ECG, demonstrating a high patient-average specificity of 96.4% and negative predictive value of 95.1%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: