Key result
The Amazfit smartwatch identified AF episodes longer than 5 minutes with 100.0% sensitivity and 83.7% specificity using PPG, and 89.7% sensitivity and 67.4% specificity using ECG, compared to 7-day Holter.
Why the study?
Wearables satisfactorily detect AF longer than 1 hour, but smartwatch performance for long-term monitoring of AF with short durations required evaluation.
Does the Amazfit smartwatch accurately identify atrial fibrillation episodes compared to a 7-day Holter monitor in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=72)
Does the Amazfit smartwatch accurately identify atrial fibrillation episodes compared to a 7-day Holter monitor in patients with atrial fibrillation?
The Amazfit smartwatch demonstrated high sensitivity but modest specificity for detecting atrial fibrillation episodes longer than 5 minutes compared to a 7-day Holter monitor.
PPG smartwatch detection warrants caution due to modest specificity; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
Background Wearables satisfactorily detect atrial fibrillation (AF) longer than 1 hour. Our study aims to evaluate smartwatch performances for long-term AF monitoring, including AF with short durations. Methods This prospective study enrolled AF patients from 2020 to 2023. Diagnostic efficacy of the Amazfit smartwatch, with AF-identifying algorithms from photoplethysmography (PPG) and single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), was compared with a 7-day Holter. Primary analysis included smartwatch diagnostics to identify AF longer than 5 minutes. Secondary analyses evaluated smartwatch performances under different settings and compared AF burdens between the smartwatch and Holter. Results The study analyzed 72 patients (48 males, mean age 65.4 ± 8.5) with 914 AF episodes lasting 834.7 hours, including 142 longer-than-5-minute AF episodes. Smartwatch recording time was 8927.6 hours. By individual, sensitivities and specificities of AF longer than 5 minutes were 100.0% and 83.7% for PPG and 89.7% and 67.4% for the ECG algorithm. Positive and negative predictive values were 94.9% and 99.9% for PPG and 77.6% and 99.8% for ECG. Optimal AF durations to be identified by PPG and ECG algorithms were 1.358 and 16.708 minutes. Smartwatch performances varied across AF durations and between day-time and night-time. Strong correlations (PPG: ρ = 0.877; ECG: ρ = 0.769) and excellent agreements (PPG: ICC = 0.976; ECG: ICC = 0.927) were found between AF burdens calculated from smartwatch and Holter. Conclusions Compared with long-term Holter, the wearable smartwatch had satisfying qualitative and quantitative diagnostic performances for continuous AF monitoring. Susceptibility to false positives led to modest specificity. Smartwatch performances were affected by AF durations and time periods. Registration ChiCTR2000040035.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pan et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=72). Amazfit smartwatch (PPG and single-lead ECG) vs. 7-day Holter was evaluated on Identification of AF longer than 5 minutes. The Amazfit smartwatch identified AF episodes longer than 5 minutes with 100.0% sensitivity and 83.7% specificity using PPG, and 89.7% sensitivity and 67.4% specificity using ECG, compared to 7-day Holter.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: