4 ms·
If I'm reading this right, the Apple Watch was actually more accurate in detecting arterial fibrilation episodes than the ECG patch they used for initial confir
by Zanni 8y ago
If I'm reading this right, the Apple Watch was actually more accurate in detecting arterial fibrilation episodes than the ECG patch they used for initial confirmation. The Apple Watch identified 2,000 people. The patch confirmed 33% of those, but then another 51% were confirmed by some undisclosed method.
- tedivm 8y agoThat's not an accurate interpretation. Atrial fibrillation episodes are not constant- they come and go, and different people will have them at different frequencies. It's possible that people had an episode while wearing the watch but haven't had any episodes while wearing the ECG. ECGs are also less comfortable to wear than watches, so it's possible the people they sent them to didn't wear them as often (it's even possible that they didn't wear them at all).
- alsetmusic 8y agoA proper study would probably compare the amount of hours of data.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- SlowRobotAhead 8y agoAll good arguments for the watch it seems. I was a little eye roll at the ECG feature Apple added, but I’m happy to be proven wrong.
- rootusrootus 8y agoThe ECG really has it's moments. I have arrhythmia (not Afib) and it's handy to be able to correlate what I'm feeling with actual evidence. And I can print it out and take with me at my next appt to discuss with the doc. But if you have a perfectly boring, normal heart, I can see not using it very often. At least it's unobtrusive if you aren't interested in it.
- rootusrootus 8y agoThey mention ECG patch, so it might not have been too bad. Those are good for longer studies than a typical Holter monitor, and they are waterproof so you can shower with them. I agree that a real Holter monitor is a bit of a pain in the ass and probably would affect compliance rate.