Dataset Information

Accuracy of Physicians Interpreting Photoplethysmography and Electrocardiography Tracings to Detect Atrial Fibrillation: INTERPRET-AF.

ABSTRACT: Aims: This study aims to compare the performance of physicians to detect atrial fibrillation (AF) based on photoplethysmography (PPG), single-lead ECG and 12-lead ECG, and to explore the incremental value of PPG presentation as a tachogram and Poincaré plot, and of algorithm classification for interpretation by physicians. Methods and Results: Email invitations to participate in an online survey were distributed among physicians to analyse almost simultaneously recorded PPG, single-lead ECG and 12-lead ECG traces from 30 patients (10 in sinus rhythm (SR), 10 in SR with ectopic beats and 10 in AF). The task was to classify the readings as 'SR', 'ectopic/missed beats', 'AF', 'flutter' or 'unreadable'. Sixty-five physicians detected or excluded AF based on the raw PPG waveforms with 88.8% sensitivity and 86.3% specificity. Additional presentation of the tachogram plus Poincaré plot significantly increased sensitivity and specificity to 95.5% (P < 0.001) and 92.5% (P < 0.001), respectively. The algorithm information did not further increase the accuracy to detect AF (sensitivity 97.5%, P = 0.556; specificity 95.0%, P = 0.182). Physicians detected AF on single-lead ECG tracings with 91.2% sensitivity and 93.9% specificity. Diagnostic accuracy was also not optimal on full 12-lead ECGs (93.9 and 98.6%, respectively). Notably, there was no significant difference between the performance of PPG waveform plus tachogram and Poincaré, compared to a single-lead ECG to detect or exclude AF (sensitivity P = 0.672; specificity P = 0.536). Conclusion: Physicians can detect AF on a PPG output with equivalent accuracy compared to single-lead ECG, if the PPG waveforms are presented together with a tachogram and Poincaré plot and the quality of the recordings is high.

SUBMITTER: Gruwez H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8488290 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundConsumer smartwatches have gained attention as mobile health (mHealth) tools able to detect atrial fibrillation (AF) using photoplethysmography (PPG) or a short strip of electrocardiogram (ECG). PPG has limited accuracy due to the movement artifacts, whereas ECG cannot be used continuously, is usually displayed as a single-lead signal and is limited in asymptomatic cases.ObjectiveDoubleCheck-AF is a validation study of a wrist-worn device dedicated to providing both continuous PPG-based rhythm monitoring and instant 6-lead ECG with no wires. We evaluated its ability to differentiate between AF and sinus rhythm (SR) with particular emphasis on the challenge of frequent premature beats.Methods and resultsWe performed a prospective, non-randomized study of 344 participants including 121 patients in AF. To challenge the specificity of the device two control groups were selected: 95 patients in stable SR and 128 patients in SR with frequent premature ventricular or atrial contractions (PVCs/PACs). All ECG tracings were labeled by two independent diagnosis-blinded cardiologists as "AF," "SR" or "Cannot be concluded." In case of disagreement, a third cardiologist was consulted. A simultaneously recorded ECG of Holter monitor served as a reference. It revealed a high burden of ectopy in the corresponding control group: 6.2 PVCs/PACs per minute, bigeminy/trigeminy episodes in 24.2% (31/128) and runs of ≥3 beats in 9.4% (12/128) of patients. AF detection with PPG-based algorithm, ECG of the wearable and combination of both yielded sensitivity and specificity of 94.2 and 96.9%; 99.2 and 99.1%; 94.2 and 99.6%, respectively. All seven false-positive PPG-based cases were from the frequent PVCs/PACs group compared to none from the stable SR group (P < 0.001). In the majority of these cases (6/7) cardiologists were able to correct the diagnosis to SR with the help of the ECG of the device (P = 0.012).ConclusionsThis is the first wearable combining PPG-based AF detection algorithm for screening of AF together with an instant 6-lead ECG with no wires for manual rhythm confirmation. The system maintained high specificity despite a remarkable amount of frequent single or multiple premature contractions.

Project description:BackgroundSmartwatches 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.ObjectiveTo 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 resultsFrom 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. 5.40 beats/min, P < 0.01), six-lead ECG (64.3 vs. 5.8 beats/min, P = 0.018), and PPG-based detector (13.20 vs. 5.60 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).ConclusionsA 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.

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of clinical-trial funding on the interpretation of trial results are poorly understood. We examined how such support affects physicians' reactions to trials with a high, medium, or low level of methodologic rigor.MethodsWe presented 503 board-certified internists with abstracts that we designed describing clinical trials of three hypothetical drugs. The trials had high, medium, or low methodologic rigor, and each report included one of three support disclosures: funding from a pharmaceutical company, NIH funding, or none. For both factors studied (rigor and funding), one of the three possible variations was randomly selected for inclusion in the abstracts. Follow-up questions assessed the physicians' impressions of the trials' rigor, their confidence in the results, and their willingness to prescribe the drugs.ResultsThe 269 respondents (53.5% response rate) perceived the level of study rigor accurately. Physicians reported that they would be less willing to prescribe drugs tested in low-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.89; P=0.008) and would be more willing to prescribe drugs tested in high-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.18 to 4.32; P<0.001). Disclosure of industry funding, as compared with no disclosure of funding, led physicians to downgrade the rigor of a trial (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P=0.006), their confidence in the results (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P=0.04), and their willingness to prescribe the hypothetical drugs (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94; P=0.02). Physicians were half as willing to prescribe drugs studied in industry-funded trials as they were to prescribe drugs studied in NIH-funded trials (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001). These effects were consistent across all levels of methodologic rigor.ConclusionsPhysicians discriminate among trials of varying degrees of rigor, but industry sponsorship negatively influences their perception of methodologic quality and reduces their willingness to believe and act on trial findings, independently of the trial's quality. These effects may influence the translation of clinical research into practice.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of Physicians Interpreting Photoplethysmography and Electrocardiography Tracings to Detect Atrial Fibrillation: INTERPRET-AF.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets