4.5 Review

Smartphone detection of atrial fibrillation using photoplethysmography: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

HEART
Volume 108, Issue 20, Pages 1600-1607

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320417

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; smartphone; photoplethysmography

Funding

  1. BigData@Heart Innovative Medicines Initiative [116074]
  2. University of Birmingham's British Heart Foundation Accelerator Award [BHF AA/18/2/34218]
  3. Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 BigData@Heart [116074]
  4. Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking [116074]
  5. National Institute for Health Research [NIHR CDF-2015-08-074 RATE-AF, NIHR HTA-130280 DaRe2THINK, NIHR EME-132974 D2T-NV]
  6. British Heart Foundation [PG/17/55/33087, AA/18/2/34218]
  7. EU/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative (BigData@Heart) [116074]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone camera photoplethysmography (PPG) compared with conventional electrocardiogram (ECG) for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. The results showed that PPG had high sensitivity and specificity for AF detection. However, the quality of the existing studies was low and biased, and further independent research is needed to evaluate the true value of PPG technology in AF detection.
Objectives Timely diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) is essential to reduce complications from this increasingly common condition. We sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone camera photoplethysmography (PPG) compared with conventional electrocardiogram (ECG) for AF detection. Methods This is a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane (1980-December 2020), including any study or abstract, where smartphone PPG was compared with a reference ECG (1, 3 or 12-lead). Random effects meta-analysis was performed to pool sensitivity/specificity and identify publication bias, with study quality assessed using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) risk of bias tool. Results 28 studies were included (10 full-text publications and 18 abstracts), providing 31 comparisons of smartphone PPG versus ECG for AF detection. 11 404 participants were included (2950 in AF), with most studies being small and based in secondary care. Sensitivity and specificity for AF detection were high, ranging from 81% to 100%, and from 85% to 100%, respectively. 20 comparisons from 17 studies were meta-analysed, including 6891 participants (2299 with AF); the pooled sensitivity was 94% (95% CI 92% to 95%) and specificity 97% (96%-98%), with substantial heterogeneity (p<0.01). Studies were of poor quality overall and none met all the QUADAS-2 criteria, with particular issues regarding selection bias and the potential for publication bias. Conclusion PPG provides a non-invasive, patient-led screening tool for AF. However, current evidence is limited to small, biased, low-quality studies with unrealistically high sensitivity and specificity. Further studies are needed, preferably independent from manufacturers, in order to advise clinicians on the true value of PPG technology for AF detection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available