Six-lead electrocardiography compared to single-lead electrocardiography and photoplethysmography of a wrist-worn device for atrial fibrillation detection controlled by premature atrial or ventricular contractions: six is smarter than one
Authors: Bacevicius Justinas , Taparauskaite Neringa , Kundelis Ricardas , Sokas Daivaras , Butkuviene Monika , Stankeviciute Guoste , Abramikas Zygimantas , Pilkiene Aiste , Dvinelis Ernestas , Staigyte Justina , Marinskiene Julija , Audzijoniene Deimile , Petrylaite Marija , Jukna Edvardas , Karuzas Albinas , Juknevicius Vytautas , Jakaite Rusne , Basyte-Bacevice Viktorija , Bileisiene Neringa , Badaras Ignas , Kiseliute Margarita , Zarembaite Gintare , Gudauskas Modestas , Jasiunas Eugenijus , Johnson Linda , Marozas Vaidotas , Aidietis Audrius 
Published: June 2023

BackgroundSmartwatches are commonly capable to record a lead-I-like electrocardiogram (ECG) and perform a photoplethysmography (PPG)-based atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. Wearable technologies repeatedly face the challenge of frequent premature beats, particularly in target populations for screening of AF.ObjectiveTo investigate the potential diagnostic benefit of six-lead ECG compared to single-lead ECG and PPG-based algorithm for AF detection of the wrist-worn device.Methods and resultsFrom the database of DoubleCheck-AF 249 adults were enrolled in AF group (n = 121) or control group of SR with frequent premature ventricular (PVCs) or atrial (PACs) contractions (n = 128). Cardiac rhythm was monitored using a wrist-worn device capable of recording continuous PPG and simultaneous intermittent six-lead standard-limb-like ECG. To display a single-lead ECG, the six-lead ECGs were trimmed to lead-I-like ECGs. Two diagnosis-blinded cardiologists evaluated reference, six-lead and single-lead ECGs as “AF”, “SR”, or “Cannot be concluded”. AF detection based on six-lead ECG, single-lead ECG, and PPG yielded a sensitivity of 99.2%, 95.7%, and 94.2%, respectively. The higher number of premature beats per minute was associated with false positive outcomes of single-lead ECG (18.80 vs. 5.40 beats/min, P &lt; 0.01), six-lead ECG (64.3 vs. 5.8 beats/min, P = 0.018), and PPG-based detector (13.20 vs. 5.60 beats/min, P = 0.05). Single-lead ECG required 3.4 times fewer extrasystoles than six-lead ECG to result in a false positive outcome. In a control subgroup of PACs, the specificity of six-lead ECG, single-lead ECG, and PPG dropped to 95%, 83.8%, and 90%, respectively. The diagnostic value of single-lead ECG (AUC 0.898) was inferior to six-lead ECG (AUC 0.971) and PPG-based detector (AUC 0.921). In a control subgroup of PVCs, the specificity of six-lead ECG, single-lead ECG, and PPG was 100%, 96.4%, and 96.6%, respectively. The diagnostic value of single-lead ECG (AUC 0.961) was inferior to six-lead ECG (AUC 0.996) and non-inferior to PPG-based detector (AUC 0.954).ConclusionsA six-lead wearable-recorded ECG demonstrated the superior diagnostic value of AF detection compared to a single-lead ECG and PPG-based AF detection. The risk of type I error due to the widespread use of smartwatch-enabled single-lead ECGs in populations with frequent premature beats is significant.