Abstract

Improved atrial fibrillation (AF) screening methods are required. We detected AF with pulse rate variability (PRV) parameters using a blood pressure device (BP+; Uscom, Sydney, Australia) and with a Kardia Mobile Cardiac Monitor (KMCM; AliveCor, Mountain View, CA). In 421 primary care patients (mean (range) age: 72 (31–99) years), we diagnosed AF (n = 133) from 12-lead electrocardiogram recordings, and performed PRV and KMCM measurements. PRV parameters detected AF with area under curve (AUC) values of up to 0.92. Using the mean of two sequential readings increased AUC to up to 0.94 and improved positive predictive value at a given sensitivity (by up to 18%). The KMCM detected AF with 83% sensitivity and 68% specificity. 89 KMCM recordings were “unclassified” or blank, and PRV detected AF in these with AUC values of up to 0.88. When non-AF arrhythmias (n = 56) were excluded, the KMCM device had increased specificity (73%) and PRV had higher discrimination performance (maximum AUC = 0.96). In decision curve analysis, all PRV parameters consistently achieved a positive net benefit across the range of clinical thresholds. In primary care, AF can be detected by PRV accurately and by KMCM, especially in the absence of non-AF arrhythmias or when combinations of measurements are used.

Highlights

  • Improved atrial fibrillation (AF) screening methods are required

  • AF can be detected by pulse rate variability (PRV) accurately and by Kardia Mobile Cardiac Monitor (KMCM), especially in the absence of non-AF arrhythmias or when combinations of measurements are used

  • The abovementioned improvements were observed between sensitivities of 0.65–0.9, corresponding to sARV values of 6–14% (23% of sample).When we classified sARV predictions based on confidence of predictions, combining measurements for “uncertain” predictions only significantly improved positive predictive value (PPV) (Supplementary Fig. 4). This diagnostic study of 421 primary care patients showed that AF determined from a 12-lead ECG can be detected with PRV using a blood pressure (BP)+ device or with a KMCM

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Improved atrial fibrillation (AF) screening methods are required. We detected AF with pulse rate variability (PRV) parameters using a blood pressure device (BP+; Uscom, Sydney, Australia) and with a Kardia Mobile Cardiac Monitor (KMCM; AliveCor, Mountain View, CA). Diagnostic studies show that this approach detects AF accurately with high sensitivity and ­specificity[4,5]; more so than other non-ECG AF screening d­ evices[6]. As there was only one threshold of the PRV classifier evaluated for discrimination performance in each study (not a range), the study findings do not tailor to a range of clinical preferences to balance false-positives and false-negatives[8] Another AF screening instrument is the Kardia Mobile Cardiac Monitor (KMCM; AliveCor, Mountain View, CA): a hand-held, smartphone-coupled, 2-electrode cardiac rhythm recorder that generates a rhythm strip equivalent to lead I for 30 s.

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.