Multiple smart devices capable to detect atrial fibrillation (AF) are presently available. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of AF may differ between available smart devices, and this has not yet been adequately investigated.
The aim was to assess the accuracy of 5 smart devices in identifying AF compared with a physician-interpreted 12-lead electrocardiogram as the reference standard in a real-world cohort of patients.
We consecutively enrolled patients presenting to a cardiology service at a tertiary referral center in a prospective, diagnostic study.
We prospectively analyzed 201 patients (31% women, median age 66.7 years). AF was present in 62 (31%) patients. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of AF were comparable between devices: 85% and 75% for the Apple Watch 6, 85% and 75% for the Samsung Galaxy Watch 3, 58% and 75% for the Withings Scanwatch, 66% and 79% for the Fitbit Sense, and 79% and 69% for the AliveCor KardiaMobile, respectively. The rate of inconclusive tracings (the algorithm was unable to determine the heart rhythm) was 18%, 17%, 24%, 21%, and 26% for the Apple Watch 6, Samsung Galaxy Watch 3, Withings Scan Watch, Fitbit Sense, and AliveCor KardiaMobile (P < 0.01 for pairwise comparison), respectively. By manual review of inconclusive tracings, the rhythm could be determined in 955 (99%) of 969 single-lead electrocardiograms. Regarding patient acceptance, the Apple Watch was ranked first (39% of participants).
In this clinical validation of 5 direct-to-consumer smart devices, we found differences in the amount of inconclusive tracings diminishing sensitivity and specificity of the smart devices. In a clinical setting, manual review of tracings is required in about one-fourth of cases.
Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.
