High Specificity Wearable Device With Photoplethysmography and Six-Lead Electrocardiography for Atrial Fibrillation Detection Challenged by Frequent Premature Contractions: DoubleCheck-AF

Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence-Based Technologies for the Diagnosis of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia with a high burden of morbidity including impaired quality of life and increased risk of thromboembolism. Early detection and management of AF could prevent thromboembolic events. Artificial intelligence (AI)--based methods in healthcare are developing quickly and can be proved as valuable for the detection of atrial fibrillation. In this metanalysis, we aim to review the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based methods for the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. A predetermined search strategy was applied on four databases, the PubMed on 31 August 2022, the Google Scholar and Cochrane Library on 3 September 2022, and the Embase on 15 October 2022. The identified studies were screened by two independent investigators. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based devices for the detection of AF in adults against a gold standard were selected. Qualitative and quantitative synthesis to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity was performed, and the QUADAS-2 tool was used for the risk of bias and applicability assessment. We screened 14,770 studies, from which 31 were eligible and included. All were diagnostic accuracy studies with case-control or cohort design. The main technologies used were: (a) photoplethysmography (PPG) with pooled sensitivity 95.1% and specificity 96.2%, and (b) single-lead ECG with pooled sensitivity 92.3% and specificity 96.2%. In the PPG group, 0% to 43.2% of the tracings could not be classified using the AI algorithm as AF or not, and in the single-lead ECG group, this figure fluctuated between 0% and 38%. Our analysis showed that AI-based methods for the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation have high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of AF. Further studies should examine whether utilization of these methods could improve clinical outcomes.

Six-lead electrocardiography compared to single-lead electrocardiography and photoplethysmography of a wrist-worn device for atrial fibrillation detection controlled by premature atrial or ventricular contractions: six is smarter than one

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. 5.40 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).

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.

Diagnostic validation of smart wearable device embedded with single-lead electrocardiogram for arrhythmia detection

Objective

To validate a single-lead electrocardiogram algorithm for identifying atrial fibrillation, atrial premature beats, ventricular premature beats, and sinus rhythm.

Methods

A total of 656 subjects aged 19 to 94 years were enrolled. Participants were simultaneously tested with a wristwatch (Huawei Watch GT2 Pro, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd, Shenzhen, China) and a 12-lead electrocardiogram for 3 minutes. A total of 1926 electrocardiogram signals from 628 subjects (282 men and 346 women) aged 19 to 94 years (median 64 years) were analyzed using an algorithm.

Results

The numbers of subjects with atrial fibrillation, atrial premature beats, ventricular premature beats, and sinus rhythm were 129, 141, 107, and 251, respectively, and together they had a total of 1926 electrocardiogram signals. For the three-class classification system, the recall, precision, and F1 score were 97.6%, 96.5%, 97.0% for sinus rhythm; 96.7%, 96.9%, 96.8% for atrial fibrillation; and 92.8%, 94.2%, 93.5% for ectopic beats, respectively. The macro-F1 score of the three-class classification system was 95.8%. For the four-class classification system, the recall, precision, and F1 score were 97.6%, 96.5%, 97.0% for sinus rhythm; 96.7%, 96.9%, 96.8% for atrial fibrillation; 90.5%, 89.4%, 89.9% for atrial premature beats; and 86.1%, 89.6%, 87.8% for ventricular premature beats, respectively. The macro-F1 score of the four-class classification system was 92.9%.

Conclusions

The single-lead electrocardiogram algorithm embedded into smart wearables demonstrated good performance in detecting atrial fibrillation, atrial/ventricular premature beats, and sinus rhythm, and thus would facilitate atrial fibrillation screening and management.

Deep-Learning-Based Estimation of the Spatial QRS-T Angle from Reduced-Lead ECGs

The spatial QRS-T angle is a promising health indicator for risk stratification of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Thus far, the angle is estimated solely from 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) systems uncomfortable for ambulatory monitoring. Methods to estimate QRS-T angles from reduced-lead ECGs registered with consumer healthcare devices would, therefore, facilitate ambulatory monitoring. (1) Objective: Develop a method to estimate spatial QRS-T angles from reduced-lead ECGs. (2) Approach: We designed a deep learning model to locate the QRS and T wave vectors necessary for computing the QRS-T angle. We implemented an original loss function to guide the model in the 3D space to search for each vector's coordinates. A gradual reduction of ECG leads from the largest publicly available dataset of clinical 12-lead ECG recordings (PTB-XL) is used for training and validation. (3) Results: The spatial QRS-T angle can be estimated from leads {I, II, aVF, V2} with sufficient accuracy (absolute mean and median errors of 11.4° and 7.3°) for detecting abnormal angles without sacrificing patient comfortability. (4) Significance: Our model could enable ambulatory monitoring of spatial QRS-T angles using patch- or textile-based ECG devices. Populations at risk of SCD, like chronic cardiac and kidney disease patients, might benefit from this technology.