Key result
An automated detection algorithm identified atrial fibrillation with 93.3% sensitivity using the Polar V800 and 90.0% using the eMotion Faros 360, but failed to detect it using devices providing pre-processed heart rate data.
Why the study?
Early diagnosis of atrial fibrillation is a priority for stroke prevention, but the ability of commercial pulse detection systems to distinguish AFib from sinus rhythm using a published algorithm was not established.
Cross-Sectional (n=144)
Randomized to one of four commercial pulse detection systems
No
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: Early diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a priority for stroke prevention. We sought to test four commercial pulse detection systems (CPDSs) for ability to distinguish AFib from normal sinus rhythm using a published algorithm (Zhou et al., PLoS One 2015;10:e0136544), compared with visual diagnosis by electrocardiogram inspection. METHODS: BAYathlon was a prospective, non-interventional, single-centre study. Adult cardiology patients with documented AFib or sinus rhythm who were due to have a routine 5-min electrocardiogram were randomized to undergo a parallel 5-min pulse assessment with a Polar V800, eMotion Faros 360, TomTom heart rate monitor, or Adidas miCoach Smart Run. RESULTS: 144 patients (73 with AFib, 71 with sinus rhythm (based on electrocardiograms); median age: 73 years; 53.5% male) were analysed. Algorithm sensitivities (primary endpoint) and specificities for AFib when applied to CPDS recordings were 93.3% and 94.1% with the Polar V800, 90.0% and 84.2% with the eMotion Faros 360, and 0% and 100% with the other CPDSs (analysis period: 127 heart rate signals + 2 min). When applied to routine electrocardiograms, the algorithm correctly detected AFib in 71/73 patients. Different analysis periods (127 heart rate signals +1 or 3 min) only slightly changed the sensitivities with the Polar V800 and eMotion Faros 360 and had no effect on the sensitivities with the other CPDSs. CONCLUSION: AFib screening using the applied algorithm is feasible with the Polar V800 and eMotion Faros 360 (which provide RR interval data) but not with the other CPDSs (which provide pre-processed heart rate time series).ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02875106.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Müller et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Atrial fibrillation (n=144). Commercial pulse detection systems (Polar V800, eMotion Faros 360, TomTom HRM, Adidas miCoach Smart Run) with an automated AFib detection algorithm vs. Visual diagnosis by routine electrocardiogram inspection was evaluated on Sensitivity of the algorithm for AFib when applied to CPDS recordings based on an analysis period of 127 HR signals + 2 min (Sensitivity 93.3% for Polar V800 and 90.0% for eMotion Faros 360, 95% CI 70.2-98.8). An automated detection algorithm identified atrial fibrillation with 93.3% sensitivity using the Polar V800 and 90.0% using the eMotion Faros 360, but failed to detect it using devices providing pre-processed heart rate data.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: