Cargando…
The comparison of Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 in detecting first diagnosed atrial fibrillation
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 electrocardiogra...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Via Medica
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10635734/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34355779 http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2021.0083 |
_version_ | 1785146356195655680 |
---|---|
author | Zaprutko, Tomasz Zaprutko, Joanna Sprawka, Józefina Pogodzińska, Monika Michalak, Michał Paczkowska, Anna Kus, Krzysztof Nowakowska, Elżbieta Baszko, Artur |
author_facet | Zaprutko, Tomasz Zaprutko, Joanna Sprawka, Józefina Pogodzińska, Monika Michalak, Michał Paczkowska, Anna Kus, Krzysztof Nowakowska, Elżbieta Baszko, Artur |
author_sort | Zaprutko, Tomasz |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10635734 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Via Medica |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106357342023-11-15 The comparison of Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 in detecting first diagnosed atrial fibrillation Zaprutko, Tomasz Zaprutko, Joanna Sprawka, Józefina Pogodzińska, Monika Michalak, Michał Paczkowska, Anna Kus, Krzysztof Nowakowska, Elżbieta Baszko, Artur Cardiol J Clinical Cardiology 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. Via Medica 2023-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10635734/ /pubmed/34355779 http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2021.0083 Text en Copyright © 2023 Via Medica https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is available in open access under Creative Common Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license, allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially |
spellingShingle | Clinical Cardiology Zaprutko, Tomasz Zaprutko, Joanna Sprawka, Józefina Pogodzińska, Monika Michalak, Michał Paczkowska, Anna Kus, Krzysztof Nowakowska, Elżbieta Baszko, Artur The comparison of Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 in detecting first diagnosed atrial fibrillation |
title | The comparison of Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 in detecting first diagnosed atrial fibrillation |
title_full | The comparison of Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 in detecting first diagnosed atrial fibrillation |
title_fullStr | The comparison of Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 in detecting first diagnosed atrial fibrillation |
title_full_unstemmed | The comparison of Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 in detecting first diagnosed atrial fibrillation |
title_short | The comparison of Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 in detecting first diagnosed atrial fibrillation |
title_sort | comparison of kardia mobile and hartmann veroval 2 in 1 in detecting first diagnosed atrial fibrillation |
topic | Clinical Cardiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10635734/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34355779 http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2021.0083 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zaprutkotomasz thecomparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT zaprutkojoanna thecomparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT sprawkajozefina thecomparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT pogodzinskamonika thecomparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT michalakmichał thecomparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT paczkowskaanna thecomparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT kuskrzysztof thecomparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT nowakowskaelzbieta thecomparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT baszkoartur thecomparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT zaprutkotomasz comparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT zaprutkojoanna comparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT sprawkajozefina comparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT pogodzinskamonika comparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT michalakmichał comparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT paczkowskaanna comparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT kuskrzysztof comparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT nowakowskaelzbieta comparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation AT baszkoartur comparisonofkardiamobileandhartmannveroval2in1indetectingfirstdiagnosedatrialfibrillation |