open access

Ahead of print
Original Article
Published online: 2021-08-02
Get Citation

The comparison of Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 in detecting first diagnosed atrial fibrillation

Tomasz Zaprutko, Joanna Zaprutko, Józefina Sprawka, Monika Pogodzińska, Michał Michalak, Anna Paczkowska, Krzysztof Kus, Elżbieta Nowakowska, Artur Baszko
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2021.0083
·
Pubmed: 34355779

open access

Ahead of print
Original articles
Published online: 2021-08-02

Abstract

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the leading cause of stroke. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) advises opportunistic AF screening among patients aged ≥ 65 years. Considering this, the aim herein, was compare the feasibility of two different systems of smartphone-based electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings to identify AF among those without a previous arrhythmia history.

Methods: Prospective AF screening was conducted at six pharmacies using Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1. A single-lead ECG was acquired by the placement of fingers on the pads. A cardiologist evaluated findings from both devices.

Results: Atrial fibrillation was identified in 3.60% and previously unknown AF was detected in 1.92% of the study participants. Sensitivity and specificity of the Kardia application in detecting AF were 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.4–88.2%) and 98.5% (95% CI 96.7–99.5%), and for Veroval 10.0% (95% CI 0.23–44.5%) and 94.96% (95% CI 92.15–96.98%), accordingly. Inter-rater agreement was k = 0.088 (95% CI 1.59–16.1%).

Conclusions: Mobile devices can detect AF, but each finding must be verified by a professional. The Kardia application appeared to be more user-friendly than Veroval. Cardiovascular screening using mobile devices is feasible at pharmacies. Hence it might be considered for routine use.

Abstract

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the leading cause of stroke. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) advises opportunistic AF screening among patients aged ≥ 65 years. Considering this, the aim herein, was compare the feasibility of two different systems of smartphone-based electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings to identify AF among those without a previous arrhythmia history.

Methods: Prospective AF screening was conducted at six pharmacies using Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1. A single-lead ECG was acquired by the placement of fingers on the pads. A cardiologist evaluated findings from both devices.

Results: Atrial fibrillation was identified in 3.60% and previously unknown AF was detected in 1.92% of the study participants. Sensitivity and specificity of the Kardia application in detecting AF were 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.4–88.2%) and 98.5% (95% CI 96.7–99.5%), and for Veroval 10.0% (95% CI 0.23–44.5%) and 94.96% (95% CI 92.15–96.98%), accordingly. Inter-rater agreement was k = 0.088 (95% CI 1.59–16.1%).

Conclusions: Mobile devices can detect AF, but each finding must be verified by a professional. The Kardia application appeared to be more user-friendly than Veroval. Cardiovascular screening using mobile devices is feasible at pharmacies. Hence it might be considered for routine use.

Get Citation

Keywords

atrial fibrillation, mobile devices, screening, pharmacies, new technologies

Supp./Additional Files (3)
Figure S1: The example of Kardia “tachycardia” finding.
Download
67KB
Figure S2: The example of Veroval “non-interpretable” finding.
View
121KB
Figure S3: The example of Veroval “rhythm wave” finding.
View
139KB
About this article
Title

The comparison of Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 in detecting first diagnosed atrial fibrillation

Journal

Cardiology Journal

Issue

Ahead of print

Article type

Original Article

Published online

2021-08-02

DOI

10.5603/CJ.a2021.0083

Pubmed

34355779

Keywords

atrial fibrillation
mobile devices
screening
pharmacies
new technologies

Authors

Tomasz Zaprutko
Joanna Zaprutko
Józefina Sprawka
Monika Pogodzińska
Michał Michalak
Anna Paczkowska
Krzysztof Kus
Elżbieta Nowakowska
Artur Baszko

References (43)
  1. Tison GH, Sanchez JM, Ballinger B, et al. Passive detection of atrial fibrillation using a commercially available smartwatch. JAMA Cardiol. 2018; 3(5): 409–416.
  2. Zulkifly H, Lip GYH, Lane DA. Epidemiology of atrial fibrillation. Int J Clin Pract. 2018; 72(3): e13070.
  3. Yan BP, Lai WHS, Chan CKY, et al. Contact-free screening of atrial fibrillation by a smartphone using facial pulsatile photoplethysmographic signals. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7(8).
  4. Jacobs MS, Kaasenbrood F, Postma MJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening for atrial fibrillation in primary care with a handheld, single-lead electrocardiogram device in the Netherlands. Europace. 2018; 20(1): 12–18.
  5. Coyne KS, Paramore C, Grandy S, et al. Assessing the direct costs of treating nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in the United States. Value Health. 2006; 9(5): 348–356.
  6. White RD, Flaker G. Smartphone-based Arrhythmia Detection: Should we encourage patients to use the ECG in their pocket? J Atr Fibrillation. 2017; 9(6): 1605.
  7. Chan PH, Wong CK, Poh YC, et al. Diagnostic performance of a smartphone-based photoplethysmographic application for atrial fibrillation screening in a primary care setting. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016; 5(7).
  8. Demaerschalk BM, Hwang HM, Leung G. US cost burden of ischemic stroke: a systematic literature review. Am J Manag Care. 2010; 16(7): 525–533.
  9. Yoneda Y, Okuda S, Hamada R, et al. Hospital cost of ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage in Japanese stroke centers. Health Policy. 2005; 73(2): 202–211.
  10. Zoni-Berisso M, Lercari F, Carazza T, et al. Epidemiology of atrial fibrillation: European perspective. Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 6: 213–220.
  11. Aronsson M, Svennberg E, Rosenqvist M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of mass screening for untreated atrial fibrillation using intermittent ECG recording. Europace. 2015; 17(7): 1023–1029.
  12. Miotla P, Olejniczak P, Futyma K, et al. Can intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxina injections alter heart function in patients with cardiac arrhythmia? J Clin Med. 2018; 7(9): 263.
  13. Giebel GD, Gissel C. Accuracy of mHealth Devices for Atrial Fibrillation Screening: Systematic Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019; 7(6): e13641.
  14. Proietti M, Farcomeni A, Goethals P, et al. Belgian Heart Rhythm Week Investigators. Cost-effectiveness and screening performance of ECG handheld machine in a population screening programme: The Belgian Heart Rhythm Week screening programme. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019; 26(9): 964–972.
  15. Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2020.
  16. Chan PH, Wong CK, Poh YC, et al. Diagnostic performance of a smartphone-based photoplethysmographic application for atrial fibrillation screening in a primary care setting. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016; 5(7): e003428.
  17. Zaprutko T, Zaprutko J, Baszko A, et al. Feasibility of atrial fibrillation screening with mobile health technologies at pharmacies. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2020; 25(2): 142–151.
  18. Godin R, Baranchuk A, Guerra P, et al. Screening for atrial fibrillation via mobile ECG in Canadian primary care practice: a feasibility evaluation. Can J Cardiol. 2018; 34(10): S104.
  19. Lowres N, Neubeck L, Salkeld G, et al. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of stroke prevention through community screening for atrial fibrillation using iPhone ECG in pharmacies. The SEARCH-AF study. Thromb Haemost. 2014; 111(6): 1167–1176.
  20. Lowres N, Krass I, Neubeck L, et al. Atrial fibrillation screening in pharmacies using an iPhone ECG: a qualitative review of implementation. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015; 37(6): 1111–1120.
  21. Evans GF, Shirk A, Muturi P, et al. Feasibility of using mobile ECG recording technology to detect atrial fibrillation in low-resource settings. Glob Heart. 2017; 12(4): 285–289.
  22. Lau JK, Lowres N, Neubeck L, et al. iPhone ECG application for community screening to detect silent atrial fibrillation: a novel technology to prevent stroke. Int J Cardiol. 2013; 165(1): 193–194.
  23. Hartmann-BP750X-Manual.pdf [Internet]. https://medaval.ie/docs/manuals/Hartmann-BP750X-Manual.pdf (cited 5 December 2019).
  24. AliveCor | FDA-cleared EKG at your fingertips. [Internet]. AliveCor, Inc. https://store.alivecor.com/ (cited 17 January 2019).
  25. Kardia now detecting Bradycardia and Tachycardia | AliveCor [Internet]. https://www.alivecor.com/blog/news/kardia_now_detecting_bradycardia_and_tachycardia/ (cited 18 February 2020).
  26. McHugh M. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica. 2012; 22(3): 276–282.
  27. Halcox JPJ, Wareham K, Cardew A, et al. Assessment of Remote Heart Rhythm Sampling Using the AliveCor Heart Monitor to Screen for Atrial Fibrillation: The REHEARSE-AF Study. Circulation. 2017; 136(19): 1784–1794.
  28. Ramkumar S, Nerlekar N, D'Souza D, et al. Atrial fibrillation detection using single lead portable electrocardiographic monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(9): e024178.
  29. Koshy AN, Sajeev JK, Negishi K, et al. Accuracy of blinded clinician interpretation of single-lead smartphone electrocardiograms and a proposed clinical workflow. Am Heart J. 2018; 205: 149–153.
  30. Desteghe L, Raymaekers Z, Lutin M, et al. Performance of handheld electrocardiogram devices to detect atrial fibrillation in a cardiology and geriatric ward setting. Europace. 2017; 19(1): 29–39.
  31. William AD, Kanbour M, Callahan T, et al. Assessing the accuracy of an automated atrial fibrillation detection algorithm using smartphone technology: The iREAD Study. Heart Rhythm. 2018; 15(10): 1561–1565.
  32. Selder JL, Breukel L, Blok S, et al. A mobile one-lead ECG device incorporated in a symptom-driven remote arrhythmia monitoring program. The first 5,982 Hartwacht ECGs. Neth Heart J. 2019; 27(1): 38–45.
  33. Lane DA, McMahon N, Gibson J, et al. Mobile health applications for managing atrial fibrillation for healthcare professionals and patients: a systematic review. Europace. 2020 [Epub ahead of print].
  34. Mant J, Fitzmaurice DA, Hobbs FD, et al. Accuracy of diagnosing atrial fibrillation on electrocardiogram by primary care practitioners and interpretative diagnostic software: analysis of data from screening for atrial fibrillation in the elderly (SAFE) trial. BMJ. 2007; 335(7616): 380.
  35. Coppetti T, Brauchlin A, Müggler S, et al. Accuracy of smartphone apps for heart rate measurement. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017; 24(12): 1287–1293.
  36. Koshy AN, Sajeev JK, Nerlekar N, et al. Smart watches for heart rate assessment in atrial arrhythmias. Int J Cardiol. 2018; 266: 124–127.
  37. Koshy AN, Sajeev JK, Teh AW. Letter by koshy et al regarding article, "Assessment of remote heart rhythm sampling using the alivecor heart monitor to screen for atrial fibrillation: the REHEARSE-AF study". Circulation. 2018; 137(20): 2191–2192.
  38. Tassie E, Scotland G, Neilson AR. A model based cost-effectiveness analysis of opportunistic screening for identifying atrial fibrillation with a single lead handheld electrocardiogram monitor in general practices in Scotland. HERU.
  39. Young JD, Badowski ME. Telehealth: increasing access to high quality care by expanding the role of technology in correctional medicine. J Clin Med. 2017; 6(2).
  40. Zaprutko T, Kopciuch D, Kus K, et al. Affordability of medicines in the European Union. PLoS One. 2017; 12(2): e0172753.
  41. Zaprutko T, Hromovyk B, Lesyk R, et al. Pharmacies for the pharmacists — Ukrainian Fears and Polish Experiences. Scientia Pharmaceutica. 2020; 88(1): 7.
  42. Hickey KT, Biviano AB, Garan H, et al. Evaluating the Utility of mHealth ECG Heart Monitoring for the Detection and Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Clinical Practice. J Atr Fibrillation. 2017; 9(5): 1546.
  43. Delgoshaei B, Mobinizadeh M, Mojdekar R, et al. Telemedicine: A systematic review of economic evaluations. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017; 31: 113.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl