Vol. 36 (2021)
Artículos originales de investigación

Use of a mobile electronic technology device for atrial fibrillation screening. Pilot study

Virginia Estragó
Cardióloga Comisión Honoraria para la Salud Cardiovascular.
Matías Muñoz
Auxiliar en estadística Comisión Honoraria para la Salud Cardiovascular.
Ramón Álvarez
Profesor Agregado. Director del IESTA, FCEA, Udelar.
Ximena Reyes
Médico. Comisión Honoraria para la Salud Cardiovascular.
Walter Reyes
Cardiólogo. Secretario Comisión Directiva Comisión Honoraria para la Salud Cardiovascular.
Published 01-08-2021

Keywords:

Atrial fibrillation, Screening, Telemedicine, Cardiovascular prevention

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a public health problem generating important morbidity and mortality mainly in > 65 years old population. Detection is key in the population at risk. This pilot study was designed to assess a mobile electronic technology device (METD) usefulness in AF screening.

Objective: evaluate validity and reliability of a METD in AF identification.

Secondary objective: to validate the process of collection, transmission, storage, method and interpretation of obtained data.

Method: participants in 5 Ibirapitá Plan workshops (October 15-November 30, 2018) were invited to participate in the study. A KardiaMobile Alive Cor® METD was used, whose ECG recording was compared with a 12L ECG taken almost at the same time. Automatic METD report was compared with 2 independent cardiologists report considering the METD recording and the 12L ECG.

Results: 114 participants (78 female), mean age 72,5 y.o. (SD 5,36; range 53-87) were included. METD sensitivity for AF diagnosis was 100% with a 96.6% specificity (PPV=57,1% NPV=100%), and a 96.8% number of correct diagnosis. A 18.4% of recordings were catalogued as “unclassified” by the METD. Considering this, the proportion of correct diagnosis decreased to 78.9%; there were not false negatives.

Conclusions: AF screening with a METD in an older population is feasible and reliable. The finding of 18.4% METD recordings as “unclassified” raises the needs for experts review during diagnosis confirmation.