4 ms·

There's definitely value. I'm not disagreeing with that. The tech journalist in question still underwent more testing after the watch alerted them to make the

There's definitely value. I'm not disagreeing with that. The tech journalist in question still underwent more testing after the watch alerted them to make the actual diagnosis. The watch is a great screening tool, but it's not a replacement for more complete diagnostic tests.

GeekyBear 8y ago
Agreed. Doctors are very conservative and would insist on verifying the data with a cardiac event monitor. However it's also true that the more comprehensive tests he had previously undergone didn't spot the problem. Since we're trying to spot an intermittent issue, the quantity of data was more important than the quality of the data.
someguydave 8y ago
Another point most folks seem to be missing: even if you are screened early by one of these devices, it's not at all obvious that subsequent early treatment will deliver extra benefit. It's even less obvious that the extra benefit of early screening and treatment will outweigh the high false positive (and therefore possible overtreatment) costs.
- GeekyBear 8y ago
  One of the major worries with untreated Afib is that it will trigger blood clots that cause strokes. (Not to mention other possible side effects of not treating the condition) Modern cardiac event monitors that the patient tapes onto their own chest, wears for a period of time, and then mails back in for analysis are so much cheaper than treating a stroke that it tilts the playing field. Many people have mentioned a Holter monitor, but those are not only more expensive, but would be overkill as a first step in seeing if there is a real issue. Here's a comparison between a Holter monitor and one brand of a more modern cardiac event 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-...

GeekyBear 8y ago

Agreed. Doctors are very conservative and would insist on verifying the data with a cardiac event monitor. However it's also true that the more comprehensive tests he had previously undergone didn't spot the problem. Since we're trying to spot an intermittent issue, the quantity of data was more important than the quality of the data.

someguydave 8y ago

Another point most folks seem to be missing: even if you are screened early by one of these devices, it's not at all obvious that subsequent early treatment will deliver extra benefit. It's even less obvious that the extra benefit of early screening and treatment will outweigh the high false positive (and therefore possible overtreatment) costs.

GeekyBear 8y ago
One of the major worries with untreated Afib is that it will trigger blood clots that cause strokes. (Not to mention other possible side effects of not treating the condition) Modern cardiac event monitors that the patient tapes onto their own chest, wears for a period of time, and then mails back in for analysis are so much cheaper than treating a stroke that it tilts the playing field. Many people have mentioned a Holter monitor, but those are not only more expensive, but would be overkill as a first step in seeing if there is a real issue. Here's a comparison between a Holter monitor and one brand of a more modern cardiac event 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-...