Key result
Abnormal handheld single-lead ECG findings are linked to ~80% higher 6.5-year mortality vs normal sinus rhythm.
Why the study?
Although consumer handheld single-lead ECG use is increasingly common, the frequency and prognostic implications of abnormal findings remain unclear.
Do abnormal findings on 30-second handheld single-lead ECGs predict 6.5-year all-cause mortality compared to exclusively normal sinus rhythm in primary care patients aged >=65 years?
Cohort (n=14,403)
Do abnormal findings on 30-second handheld single-lead ECGs predict 6.5-year all-cause mortality compared to exclusively normal sinus rhythm in primary care patients aged >=65 years?
In older primary care patients screened with handheld single-lead ECGs, 41% had abnormal findings, and both atrial fibrillation and non-AF abnormalities (conduction disease, supraventricular/ventricular arrhythmias, and unreadable tracings) were independently associated with increased 6.5-year all-cause mortality.
Abnormal single-lead ECG findings were associated with higher mortality in older adults; leaves open whether screening or interventions improve outcomes.
Background Use of consumer handheld single-lead electrocardiograms (SL ECG) is increasingly common, yet frequency and prognostic implications of abnormal SL ECG findings remain unclear. Purpose To quantify the frequency and outcomes of cardiologist-diagnosed abnormal findings on real-world SL ECGs performed systematically among participants of an atrial fibrillation (AF) screening trial. Methods We analyzed tracings obtained prospectively from primary care patients aged ≥65 years who underwent screening with 30s second SL ECG using the KardiaMobile 1L device (AliveCor, Inc). All tracings were manually interpreted by board-certified study cardiologists and findings assigned into clinically relevant categories of abnormality based on prior literature. Associations between each category and 6.5-year all-cause mortality (maximum available follow-up) were assessed using Kaplan–Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models with robust variance estimation clustered by patient (as some patients had multiple SL ECG). The model was adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and myocardial infarction. Patients with exclusively normal sinus rhythm (NSR) across all screening SL ECGs served as the reference group. Results We analyzed 16,496 SL ECGs from 14,403 patients. 41% of patients screened for AF had at least one abnormal finding (Table; Figure 1a, 1b). In multivariable-adjusted models, atrial fibrillation or flutter (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.50–2.17), conduction system disease (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04–1.49), supraventricular arrhythmia (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02–1.49), and ventricular arrhythmia (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.03–1.54) were each associated with higher mortality compared with NSR (Figure 1c). Tracings marked as unreadable were associated with nearly twofold higher mortality (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.64–2.37). Conclusion In a large primary care screening trial population, nearly half of older adults had SL ECG evidence of arrhythmia or conduction system disease. Several non-AF-related abnormal findings were associated with greater mortality, highlighting a potentially broader prognostic utility of SL ECG. Future work is warranted to identify optimal methods to integrate and react to abnormal SL ECG findings observed in routine care.TableFigure
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patt et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Arrhythmias and conduction system abnormalities detected during atrial fibrillation screening (n=14,403). Abnormal findings on handheld single-lead ECG (KardiaMobile 1L) vs. Exclusively normal sinus rhythm (NSR) across all screening single-lead ECGs was evaluated on 6.5-year all-cause mortality (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.50-2.17). Abnormal handheld single-lead ECG findings occurred in 41% of older adults and predicted higher 6.5-year mortality vs normal sinus rhythm, including AF/flutter (HR 1.80; 95% CI 1.50-2.17).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: