Survey of current perspectives on consumer-available digital health devices for detecting atrial fibrillation.
Atrial fibrillation
Biomedical sensors and wearable technology
Digital health devices
ECG
Pulse plethysmography
Remote monitoring
Journal
Cardiovascular digital health journal
ISSN: 2666-6936
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Digit Health J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101771268
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
14
9
2020
pubmed:
15
9
2020
medline:
15
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Many digital health technologies capable of atrial fibrillation (AF) detection are directly available to patients. However, adaptation into clinical practice by heart rhythm healthcare practitioners (HCPs) is unclear. To examine HCP perspectives on use of commercial technologies for AF detection and management. We created an electronic survey for HCPs assessing practice demographics and perspectives on digital devices for AF detection and management. The survey was distributed electronically to all members of 3 heart rhythm professional societies. We received 1601 responses out of 73,563 e-mails sent, with 43.6% from cardiac electrophysiologists, 12.8% from fellows, and 11.6% from advanced practice practitioners. Most respondents (62.3%) reported having recommended patient use of a digital device for AF detection. Those who did not had concerns about their accuracy (29.6%), clinical utility of results (22.8%), and integration into electronic health records (19.8%). Results from a 30-second single-lead electrocardiogram were sufficient for 42.7% of HCPs to recommend oral anticoagulation for patients at high risk for stroke. Respondents wanted more data comparing the accuracy of digital devices to conventional devices for AF monitoring (64.9%). A quarter (27.3%) of HCPs had no reservations recommending digital devices for AF detection, and most (53.4%) wanted guidelines from their professional societies providing guidance on their optimal use. Many HCPs have already integrated digital devices into their clinical practice. However, HCPs reported facing challenges when using digital technologies for AF detection, and professional society recommendations on their use are needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Many digital health technologies capable of atrial fibrillation (AF) detection are directly available to patients. However, adaptation into clinical practice by heart rhythm healthcare practitioners (HCPs) is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To examine HCP perspectives on use of commercial technologies for AF detection and management.
METHODS
METHODS
We created an electronic survey for HCPs assessing practice demographics and perspectives on digital devices for AF detection and management. The survey was distributed electronically to all members of 3 heart rhythm professional societies.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We received 1601 responses out of 73,563 e-mails sent, with 43.6% from cardiac electrophysiologists, 12.8% from fellows, and 11.6% from advanced practice practitioners. Most respondents (62.3%) reported having recommended patient use of a digital device for AF detection. Those who did not had concerns about their accuracy (29.6%), clinical utility of results (22.8%), and integration into electronic health records (19.8%). Results from a 30-second single-lead electrocardiogram were sufficient for 42.7% of HCPs to recommend oral anticoagulation for patients at high risk for stroke. Respondents wanted more data comparing the accuracy of digital devices to conventional devices for AF monitoring (64.9%). A quarter (27.3%) of HCPs had no reservations recommending digital devices for AF detection, and most (53.4%) wanted guidelines from their professional societies providing guidance on their optimal use.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Many HCPs have already integrated digital devices into their clinical practice. However, HCPs reported facing challenges when using digital technologies for AF detection, and professional society recommendations on their use are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32924024
doi: 10.1016/j.cvdhj.2020.06.002
pii: S2666-6936(20)30004-9
pmc: PMC7452829
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
21-29Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : F30 HL149335
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : K23 HL135397
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL139731
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : T32 HL120823
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors.
Références
Europace. 2018 Jan 1;20(1):12-18
pubmed: 27733465
Am Heart J. 2016 May;175:77-85
pubmed: 27179726
Eur Heart J. 2017 May 1;38(17):1339-1344
pubmed: 28329139
Circulation. 2015 Jun 23;131(25):2176-84
pubmed: 25910800
Am Heart J. 2018 Nov;205:149-153
pubmed: 30195576
Thromb Haemost. 2014 Jun;111(6):1167-76
pubmed: 24687081
JAMA Cardiol. 2018 May 1;3(5):409-416
pubmed: 29562087
Can J Cardiol. 2018 Nov;34(11):1522-1525
pubmed: 30144961
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 29;71(21):2381-2388
pubmed: 29535065
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Sep;17(9):e233-e241
pubmed: 32247013
SAGE Open Med. 2018 Feb 20;6:2050312118759444
pubmed: 29511541
N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 12;366(2):120-9
pubmed: 22236222
Circulation. 2017 Nov 7;136(19):1784-1794
pubmed: 28851729
Clin Cardiol. 2020 Sep;43(9):1032-1039
pubmed: 32700414
Circulation. 2003 Apr 1;107(12):1614-9
pubmed: 12668495
Lancet. 2019 Sep 7;394(10201):861-867
pubmed: 31378392
Eur Heart J. 2020 Jun 1;41(21):1954-1955
pubmed: 32379309
JAMA. 2018 Aug 7;320(5):478-484
pubmed: 30088016
Am Heart J. 2019 Sep;215:147-156
pubmed: 31326680
Europace. 2015 Jul;17(7):1023-9
pubmed: 25868469
Heart Rhythm. 2018 Oct;15(10):1561-1565
pubmed: 30143448
N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381(20):1909-1917
pubmed: 31722151
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Aug 25;5(8):e129
pubmed: 28842392
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2020 May 08;28:100533
pubmed: 32391412
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jul 21;5(7):
pubmed: 27444506