Simon Weidlich MD , Diego Mannhart MD , Alan Kennedy PhD , Peter Doggart , Teodor Serban MD , Sven Knecht DSc-PhD , Jeanne Du Fay de Lavallaz MD-PhD , Michael Kühne MD , Christian Sticherling MD , Patrick Badertscher MD
{"title":"Reducing the burden of inconclusive smart device single-lead ECG tracings via a novel artificial intelligence algorithm","authors":"Simon Weidlich MD , Diego Mannhart MD , Alan Kennedy PhD , Peter Doggart , Teodor Serban MD , Sven Knecht DSc-PhD , Jeanne Du Fay de Lavallaz MD-PhD , Michael Kühne MD , Christian Sticherling MD , Patrick Badertscher MD","doi":"10.1016/j.cvdhj.2023.12.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Multiple smart devices capable of automatically detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) based on single-lead electrocardiograms (SL-ECG) are presently available. The rate of inconclusive tracings by manufacturers’ algorithms is currently too high to be clinically useful.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>This is a prospective, observational study enrolling patients presenting to a cardiology service at a tertiary referral center. We assessed the clinical value of applying a smart device artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithm for detecting AF from 4 commercially available smart devices (AliveCor KardiaMobile, Apple Watch 6, Fitbit Sense, and Samsung Galaxy Watch3). Patients underwent a nearly simultaneous 12-lead ECG and 4 smart device SL-ECGs. The novel AI algorithm (PulseAI, Belfast, United Kingdom) was compared with each manufacturer’s algorithm.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We enrolled 206 patients (31% female, median age 64 years). AF was present in 60 patients (29%). Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of AF by the novel AI algorithm vs manufacturer algorithm were 88% vs 81% (<em>P</em> = .34) and 97% vs 77% (<em>P</em> < .001) for the AliveCor KardiaMobile, 86% vs 81% (<em>P</em> = .45) and 95% vs 83% (<em>P</em> < .001) for the Apple Watch 6, 91% vs 67% (<em>P</em> < .01) and 94% vs 82% (<em>P</em> < .001) for the Fitbit Sense, and 86% vs 82% (<em>P</em> = .63) and 94% vs 80% (<em>P</em> < .001) for the Samsung Galaxy Watch3, respectively. In addition, the proportion of SL-ECGs with an inconclusive diagnosis (1.2%) was significantly lower for all smart devices using the AI-based algorithm compared to manufacturer’s algorithms (14%–17%), <em>P</em> < .001.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>A novel AI algorithm reduced the rate of inconclusive SL-ECG diagnosis massively while maintaining sensitivity and improving the specificity compared to the manufacturers’ algorithms.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72527,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular digital health journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"Pages 29-35"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666693623001111/pdfft?md5=50dd82b73a9643b290710c2bd2ea7a1f&pid=1-s2.0-S2666693623001111-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular digital health journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666693623001111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Multiple smart devices capable of automatically detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) based on single-lead electrocardiograms (SL-ECG) are presently available. The rate of inconclusive tracings by manufacturers’ algorithms is currently too high to be clinically useful.
Method
This is a prospective, observational study enrolling patients presenting to a cardiology service at a tertiary referral center. We assessed the clinical value of applying a smart device artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithm for detecting AF from 4 commercially available smart devices (AliveCor KardiaMobile, Apple Watch 6, Fitbit Sense, and Samsung Galaxy Watch3). Patients underwent a nearly simultaneous 12-lead ECG and 4 smart device SL-ECGs. The novel AI algorithm (PulseAI, Belfast, United Kingdom) was compared with each manufacturer’s algorithm.
Results
We enrolled 206 patients (31% female, median age 64 years). AF was present in 60 patients (29%). Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of AF by the novel AI algorithm vs manufacturer algorithm were 88% vs 81% (P = .34) and 97% vs 77% (P < .001) for the AliveCor KardiaMobile, 86% vs 81% (P = .45) and 95% vs 83% (P < .001) for the Apple Watch 6, 91% vs 67% (P < .01) and 94% vs 82% (P < .001) for the Fitbit Sense, and 86% vs 82% (P = .63) and 94% vs 80% (P < .001) for the Samsung Galaxy Watch3, respectively. In addition, the proportion of SL-ECGs with an inconclusive diagnosis (1.2%) was significantly lower for all smart devices using the AI-based algorithm compared to manufacturer’s algorithms (14%–17%), P < .001.
Conclusion
A novel AI algorithm reduced the rate of inconclusive SL-ECG diagnosis massively while maintaining sensitivity and improving the specificity compared to the manufacturers’ algorithms.