4.6 Article

Diagnostic Performance of a Smartphone-Based Photoplethysmographic Application for Atrial Fibrillation Screening in a Primary Care Setting

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003428

关键词

atrial fibrillation; mobile app; photoplethysmography; screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Diagnosing atrial fibrillation (AF) before ischemic stroke occurs is a priority for stroke prevention in AF. Smartphone camera-based photoplethysmographic (PPG) pulse waveform measurement discriminates between different heart rhythms, but its ability to diagnose AF in real-world situations has not been adequately investigated. We sought to assess the diagnostic performance of a standalone smartphone PPG application, Cardiio Rhythm, for AF screening in primary care setting. Methods and Results-Patients with hypertension, with diabetes mellitus, and/or aged = 65 years were recruited. A single-lead ECG was recorded by using the AliveCor heart monitor with tracings reviewed subsequently by 2 cardiologists to provide the reference standard. PPG measurements were performed by using the Cardiio Rhythm smartphone application. AF was diagnosed in 28 (2.76%) of 1013 participants. The diagnostic sensitivity of the Cardiio Rhythm for AF detection was 92.9% (95% CI] 77-99%) and was higher than that of the AliveCor automated algorithm (71.4% [95% CI 51-87%]). The specificities of Cardiio Rhythm and the AliveCor automated algorithm were comparable (97.7% [95% CI: 97-99%] versus 99.4% [95% CI 99-100%]). The positive predictive value of the Cardiio Rhythm was lower than that of the AliveCor automated algorithm (53.1% [95% CI 38-67%] versus 76.9% [95% CI 56-91%]); both had a very high negative predictive value (99.8% [95% CI 99-100%] versus 99.2% [95% CI 98-100%]). Conclusions-The Cardiio Rhythm smartphone PPG application provides an accurate and reliable means to detect AF in patients at risk of developing AF and has the potential to enable population-based screening for AF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据