Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Smartwatches in the Assessment of Heart Failure Patients in Epidemiology and Pathophysiology Studies: A Scoping Review
Authors' conclusion
SWs could be used as a complement to standard monitoring in HF. With continuous technological advances, it will be valuable to follow the deployment of SWs and to investigate their contribution to increased patient safety and consequently to health care cost reductions.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with heart failure (HF) assessed with commercialized smartwatches (studies with smartwatches (SWs))patients with HF in 13 included articles (of 1200 identified)
- Participants
- 1,171 patients
- Comparison
- SW-collected physiological metrics against established technologies
- Outcome
- Heart rate validity, Fitbit trackers
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Moderately accurate (n = 5 patients)
r = 0.54
Further findings
Step count validity, Garmin watches
- Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) for Vivofit 1 (n = 15 patients)
- 0.89
- CCC for Vivofit 3 (n = 15 patients)
- 0.92
- Mean age: 65.5 ± 12.6 years
Calorimetry, mean difference to indirect calorimeter
- Fitbit Charge 2 (n = 19 patients)
- P = 0.01
- Mio Slice (n = 19 patients)
- P = 0.02
- Least reliable measurement
- Mean age: 65.1 ± 6.6 years
Patient adherence to wrist-worn activity trackers
- Research setting (n = 70 patients)
- 91.3%
- Real-world environment (n = 14 patients)
- 64%
- Research setting median age (IQR): 79 years (76-82)
Health-care provider acceptance
- Cardiologists acknowledging the data's usefulness
- six cardiologists out of six
Device ownership among the HF population
- Range
- 10 to 50%
Exercise intolerance by New York Heart Association (NYHA) class
- SWs, especially Fitbit devices, identified a pattern where the degree of exercise intolerance increased with higher NYHA classes
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →