5 ms·

In the same manner that in a conventional ECG, 10 electrodes are used while this only requires you to put your finger on the crown. The data is less accurate bu

by mtw 8y ago

In the same manner that in a conventional ECG, 10 electrodes are used while this only requires you to put your finger on the crown. The data is less accurate but apparently good enough to detect 98% of AFib cases.

GeekyBear 8y ago
The 12 lead ECG is used for a different diagnostic purpose. The Apple Watch is positioned as a cardiac event monitor. Those are intended for extended wear and only need to take measurements between a single pair of electrodes to function. For instance, a Zio Patch is a modern version designed to be compact and unobtrusive. Here's a comparison between a Zio Patch and the old school tech of a Holter Monitor. https://www.medgadget.com/2014/01/zio-wireless-patch-may-be-better-option-than-holter-monitors-for-cardiac-arrhythmia-diagnosis.html https://www.medgadget.com/2014/01/zio-wireless-patch-may-be-... One of the tech journalists at Ziff Davis who took part in Apple's heart study ended up being dignosed with Afib by his cardiologist. He wrote about the process he went through. TLDR: The watch flagged that there was a potential problem, he was given a traditional tape on cardiac event monitor to wear for an extended period to confirm the watch data, and was then diagnosed and treated. https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-apple-watch-saved-my-life/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-apple-watch-saved-my-life/ For me, this was the money quote: "I've had EKGs a number of times, and there was never any indication anything was wrong."
JshWright 8y ago
It's not necessarily "less accurate" data (it may or may not be), there is just less of it. A conventional ECG uses those 10 electrodes to view the heart from 12 different "directions", which allows you to understand how impulses are moving throughout the heart as a whole. A watch only gets you one of those leads (Lead 1, specifically).

by mtw 8y ago

GeekyBear 8y ago

The 12 lead ECG is used for a different diagnostic purpose. The Apple Watch is positioned as a cardiac event monitor. Those are intended for extended wear and only need to take measurements between a single pair of electrodes to function. For instance, a Zio Patch is a modern version designed to be compact and unobtrusive. Here's a comparison between a Zio Patch and the old school tech of a Holter Monitor. https://www.medgadget.com/2014/01/zio-wireless-patch-may-be-better-option-than-holter-monitors-for-cardiac-arrhythmia-diagnosis.html https://www.medgadget.com/2014/01/zio-wireless-patch-may-be-... One of the tech journalists at Ziff Davis who took part in Apple's heart study ended up being dignosed with Afib by his cardiologist. He wrote about the process he went through. TLDR: The watch flagged that there was a potential problem, he was given a traditional tape on cardiac event monitor to wear for an extended period to confirm the watch data, and was then diagnosed and treated. https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-apple-watch-saved-my-life/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-apple-watch-saved-my-life/ For me, this was the money quote: "I've had EKGs a number of times, and there was never any indication anything was wrong."

JshWright 8y ago

It's not necessarily "less accurate" data (it may or may not be), there is just less of it. A conventional ECG uses those 10 electrodes to view the heart from 12 different "directions", which allows you to understand how impulses are moving throughout the heart as a whole. A watch only gets you one of those leads (Lead 1, specifically).