This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Smartphone-based heart monitor detected sinus rhythm, AF, atrial flutter
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
A wireless heart monitor contained in a smartphone case was associated with similar performance to traditional transtelephonic monitoring for the detection of sinus rhythm, atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter after an ablation procedure.
The single-center, nonrandomized, single-masked iTransmit study included 60 adults (mean age, 60 years). All participants owned an iPhone 4, 4s or 5 model and underwent ablation to treat AF.
Upon discharge after ablation, all participants received an AliveCor heart monitor smartphone case and a transtelephonic monitor and were asked to record their heart rhythms on both devices simultaneously, either once weekly or at the onset of symptoms for 3 to 4 months. Upon completion of follow-up, the primary electrophysiologist reviewed the AliveCor monitor results and compared the quality with that of the results obtained from the transtelephonic monitor.
The AliveCor monitor has electrodes on the back of a smartphone case that convert electrical signals from the user’s fingertips into ultrasound signals and transmit them to the device microphone. The result is an electrocardiographic image similar to a 12-lead ECG, which can then be downloaded wirelessly for remote evaluation, according to study background details.
Fifty-five participants completed the study, yielding 389 simultaneous recordings on both monitor devices. The researchers calculated a kappa statistic of 0.82 for the AliveCor device, indicating excellent agreement with the traditional monitor, according to the results. The smartphone case monitor correctly detected sinus rhythm in 97% of recordings, and AF and atrial flutter in 100% of recordings. Inclusion of AF and atrial flutter as a single disease state indicated a specificity of 97% and a sensitivity of 100% for the AliveCor case.
According to results of a survey administered at the end of follow-up, 2% of patients reported difficulty using the AliveCor monitor. Ninety-two percent stated that they preferred the smartphone case monitor to the traditional monitor. When comparing the results of the two devices from each patient, electrophysiologists indicated that 73% of the results obtained from the AliveCor monitor were as good as those from the traditional monitor, whereas 14% were worse and 13% were better.
“The clinical value of these findings are important, as the current options for monitoring patients after AF ablation vary between institutions and are usually patient-specific,” Khaldoun G. Tarakji, MD, MPH, from the department of cardiovascular medicine, Cleveland Clinic, said in a press release. “Capturing AF and monitoring someone’s heart after an ablation can be extremely challenging and it is imperative to have an easy-to-use monitor that patients can have access to anywhere and at any time after an ablation.”
Disclosure: The study was supported by the Cleveland Clinic Electrophysiology Research fund. AliveCor Inc. provided the smartphone cases used, but was not involved in the study.
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts