Key result
Smart devices with photoplethysmography demonstrated high accuracy (97.72%; 95% CI 96.11-98.70%) for detecting atrial fibrillation, with no significant difference compared to 12-lead ECG (P>.99).
Why the study?
Do mobile phones and smart bands using photoplethysmography (PPG) accurately detect atrial fibrillation compared to 12-lead ECG in inpatients?
Cross-Sectional (n=108)
No
Do mobile phones and smart bands using photoplethysmography (PPG) accurately detect atrial fibrillation compared to 12-lead ECG in inpatients?
p-value: p=>.99
Smart devices utilizing photoplethysmography (PPG) technology demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy for detecting atrial fibrillation, suggesting they could be effective tools for widespread population screening.
Supports PPG smart band accuracy for inpatient AF detection; hypothesis-generating before screening adoption.
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. The asymptomatic nature and paroxysmal frequency of AF lead to suboptimal early detection. A novel technology, photoplethysmography (PPG), has been developed for AF screening. However, there has been limited validation of mobile phone and smart band apps with PPG compared to 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECG). OBJECTIVE We investigated the feasibility and accuracy of a mobile phone and smart band for AF detection using pulse data measured by PPG. METHODS A total of 112 consecutive inpatients were recruited from the Chinese PLA General Hospital from March 15 to April 1, 2018. Participants were simultaneously tested with mobile phones (HUAWEI Mate 9, HUAWEI Honor 7X), smart bands (HUAWEI Band 2), and 12-lead ECG for 3 minutes. RESULTS In all, 108 patients (56 with normal sinus rhythm, 52 with persistent AF) were enrolled in the final analysis after excluding four patients with unclear cardiac rhythms. The corresponding sensitivity and specificity of the smart band PPG were 95.36% (95% CI 92.00%-97.40%) and 99.70% (95% CI 98.08%-99.98%), respectively. The positive predictive value of the smart band PPG was 99.63% (95% CI 97.61%-99.98%), the negative predictive value was 96.24% (95% CI 93.50%-97.90%), and the accuracy was 97.72% (95% CI 96.11%-98.70%). Moreover, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of mobile phones with PPG for AF detection were over 94%. There was no significant difference after further statistical analysis of the results from the different smart devices compared with the gold-standard ECG (P>.99). CONCLUSIONS The algorithm based on mobile phones and smart bands with PPG demonstrated good performance in detecting AF and may represent a convenient tool for AF detection in at-risk individuals, allowing widespread screening of AF in the population. CLINICALTRIAL Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-OOC-17014138; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=24191 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation/76WXknvE6)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fan et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in Atrial fibrillation (n=108). Smart devices (mobile phones and smart bands) with photoplethysmography (PPG) vs. 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was evaluated on Accuracy of smart band PPG for atrial fibrillation detection (95% CI 96.11-98.70, p=>.99). Smart devices with photoplethysmography demonstrated high accuracy (97.72%; 95% CI 96.11-98.70%) for detecting atrial fibrillation, with no significant difference compared to 12-lead ECG (P>.99).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: