Performance of a Mobile Single-Lead Electrocardiogram Technology for Atrial Fibrillation Screening in a Semirural African Population: Insights From "The Heart of Ethiopia: Focus on Atrial Fibrillation" (TEFF-AF) Study

Atrial fibrillation (AF) screening using mobile single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) devices has demonstrated variable sensitivity and specificity. However, limited data exists on the use of such devices in low-resource countries. The goal of the research was to evaluate the utility of the KardiaMobi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2021-05, Vol.9 (5), p.e24470-e24470
Hauptverfasser: Pitman, Bradley M, Chew, Sok-Hui, Wong, Christopher X, Jaghoori, Amenah, Iwai, Shinsuke, Thomas, Gijo, Chew, Andrew, Sanders, Prashanthan, Lau, Dennis H
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Atrial fibrillation (AF) screening using mobile single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) devices has demonstrated variable sensitivity and specificity. However, limited data exists on the use of such devices in low-resource countries. The goal of the research was to evaluate the utility of the KardiaMobile device's (AliveCor Inc) automated algorithm for AF screening in a semirural Ethiopian population. Analysis was performed on 30-second single-lead ECG tracings obtained using the KardiaMobile device from 1500 TEFF-AF (The Heart of Ethiopia: Focus on Atrial Fibrillation) study participants. We evaluated the performance of the KardiaMobile automated algorithm against cardiologists' interpretations of 30-second single-lead ECG for AF screening. A total of 1709 single-lead ECG tracings (including repeat tracing on 209 occasions) were analyzed from 1500 Ethiopians (63.53% [953/1500] male, mean age 35 [SD 13] years) who presented for AF screening. Initial successful rhythm decision (normal or possible AF) with one single-lead ECG tracing was lower with the KardiaMobile automated algorithm versus manual verification by cardiologists (1176/1500, 78.40%, vs 1455/1500, 97.00%; P
ISSN:2291-5222
2291-5222
DOI:10.2196/24470