ABSTRACT
Background: Smartwatches are commonly capable to record a lead-I-like electrocardiogram (ECG) and perform a photoplethysmography (PPG)-based atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. Wearable technologies repeatedly face the challenge of frequent premature beats, particularly in target populations for screening of AF. Objective: To investigate the potential diagnostic benefit of six-lead ECG compared to single-lead ECG and PPG-based algorithm for AF detection of the wrist-worn device. Methods and results: From the database of DoubleCheck-AF 249 adults were enrolled in AF group (n = 121) or control group of SR with frequent premature ventricular (PVCs) or atrial (PACs) contractions (n = 128). Cardiac rhythm was monitored using a wrist-worn device capable of recording continuous PPG and simultaneous intermittent six-lead standard-limb-like ECG. To display a single-lead ECG, the six-lead ECGs were trimmed to lead-I-like ECGs. Two diagnosis-blinded cardiologists evaluated reference, six-lead and single-lead ECGs as "AF", "SR", or "Cannot be concluded". AF detection based on six-lead ECG, single-lead ECG, and PPG yielded a sensitivity of 99.2%, 95.7%, and 94.2%, respectively. The higher number of premature beats per minute was associated with false positive outcomes of single-lead ECG (18.80 vs. 5.40â beats/min, P < 0.01), six-lead ECG (64.3 vs. 5.8â beats/min, P = 0.018), and PPG-based detector (13.20 vs. 5.60â beats/min, P = 0.05). Single-lead ECG required 3.4 times fewer extrasystoles than six-lead ECG to result in a false positive outcome. In a control subgroup of PACs, the specificity of six-lead ECG, single-lead ECG, and PPG dropped to 95%, 83.8%, and 90%, respectively. The diagnostic value of single-lead ECG (AUC 0.898) was inferior to six-lead ECG (AUC 0.971) and PPG-based detector (AUC 0.921). In a control subgroup of PVCs, the specificity of six-lead ECG, single-lead ECG, and PPG was 100%, 96.4%, and 96.6%, respectively. The diagnostic value of single-lead ECG (AUC 0.961) was inferior to six-lead ECG (AUC 0.996) and non-inferior to PPG-based detector (AUC 0.954). Conclusions: A six-lead wearable-recorded ECG demonstrated the superior diagnostic value of AF detection compared to a single-lead ECG and PPG-based AF detection. The risk of type I error due to the widespread use of smartwatch-enabled single-lead ECGs in populations with frequent premature beats is significant.
ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives: Increased levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) are the main criteria that differentiate non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) from unstable angina (UA). How are these implemented in clinical practices? This study aims to detect cases of misdiagnosed UA instead of NSTEMI. Materials and Methods: We analysed discharge summaries of 840 patients admitted to Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos with the diagnosis of UA in 2017-2018. We retrospectively checked symptoms, levels of hs-cTn, coronary angiography and electrocardiogram changes with an aim to differentiate UA and type 1 NSTEMI, according to the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. We excluded patients with missing hs-cTn levels or coronary angiography. Results: We found that 46.71% (n = 334) of patients met the diagnostic criteria of UA according to the Fourth Universal Definition, whereas 19.16% of patients (n = 137) could have been diagnosed with type 1 NSTEMI instead of UA. In the group of patients who could be reclassified to type 1 NSTEMI, the median level of hs-cTn was 184.32 [226.15] ng/L on admission. The median of the lowest level during the hospitalization was 114.0 [207.4] ng/L. Median highest-304.0 [257.6] ng/L. Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries could have been diagnosed in 3.36% (n = 24) of patients. Conclusions: Only less than half of patients met the diagnostic UA criteria. Almost one-fifth of patients with a diagnosis of UA could be reclassified to type 1 NSTEMI.
