Cardiovascular Digital Health Journal (Apr 2021)

Atrial fibrillation future clinic. Novel platform to integrate smart device electrocardiogram into clinical practice

  • Cameron T. Lambert, MD,
  • Divyang Patel, MD,
  • Joseph M. Bumgarner, MD,
  • Mohamed Kanj, MD,
  • Daniel Cantillon, MD, FHRS,
  • Walid Saliba, MD,
  • Ayman Hussein, MD, FHRS,
  • Bryan Baranowski, MD,
  • Thomas Dresing, MD,
  • Mina K. Chung, MD, FHRS,
  • John Rickard, MD, MPH,
  • Niraj Varma, MD, PhD,
  • Thomas Callahan, MD, FHRS,
  • David Martin, MD,
  • Patrick Tchou, MD, FHRS,
  • Mandeep Bhargava, MD,
  • Kathy Wolski, MS,
  • Oussama Wazni, MD, FHRS,
  • Khaldoun G. Tarakji, MD, MPH, FHRS

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 2, no. 2
pp. 92 – 100

Abstract

Read online

Background: Direct-to-consumer devices allow patients to record electrocardiograms (ECG) and detect atrial fibrillation (AF). Clinical adoption of these devices has been limited owing to the lack of efficient workflow. Objective: To assess a new care model for following patients after AF ablation that uses a smartphone ECG coupled with a novel cloud-based platform. Methods: This was a pilot study to describe AF detection, healthcare utilization, use of additional ECGs and cardiac monitors, and changes in anxiety after AF ablation. Patients presenting 3–4 months after early successful AF ablation were randomized into a control group with standard clinical follow-up or a self-monitoring group using smartphone ECG (Kardia Mobile, KM) coupled with a cloud-based platform (KardiaPro, KP) that alerted the physician when AF was detected and followed for 6 months Results: A total of 100 patients were randomized: 51 to the KM/KP group and 48 to the control group (1 withdrew). AF was detected in 18 patients (18.2%), 11 (21.6%) in the KM/KP group and 7 (14.6%) in the control group (P = .42). AF detection occurred at a median of 68 and 91 days in the KM/KP and control groups, respectively (P = .93). These differences were not statistically significant. Healthcare utilization and changes in anxiety were similar between the groups. More patients required additional ECGs or cardiac monitors in the control group (27.1%) compared to the KM/KP group (5.9%) (P = .004). Conclusions: Smartphone ECG with a cloud-based platform can be incorporated into the care of post–AF ablation patients without increasing anxiety and with less need for additional traditional monitors.

Keywords