ObjectiveThe AliveCor KardiaBand (KB) is an Food and Drug Administration-approved smartwatch-based cardiac rhythm monitor that records a lead-Intelligent ECG (iECG). Despite the appeal of wearable integrated ECG devices, there is a paucity of data evaluating their accuracy in diagnosing atrial fibrillation (AF). We evaluated whether a smartwatch-based device for AF detection is an accurate tool for diagnosing AF when compared with 12-lead ECG.MethodsA prospective, multi-centre, validation study was conducted in an inpatient hospital setting. The KB paired with a smartwatch, generated an automated diagnosis of AF or sinus rhythm (SR). This was compared with a 12-lead ECG performed immediately after iECG tracing. Where an unclassified or no-analysis tracing was generated, repeat iECG was performed.Results439 ECGs (iECGs (n=239) and 12-lead ECG (n=200)) were recorded in 200 patients (AF: n=38; SR: n=162) from three tertiary centres. Sensitivity and specificity using KB was 94.4% and 81.9% respectively, with a positive predictive value of 54.8% and negative predictive value of 98.4%. Agreement between 12-lead ECG and KB diagnosis was moderate when unclassified tracings were included (κ=0.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72). Combining the automated device diagnosis with blinded electrophysiologists (EP) interpretation of unclassified tracings improved overall agreement (EP1: κ=0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87; EP2: κ=0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.86).ConclusionThe KB demonstrated moderate diagnostic accuracy when compared with a 12-lead ECG. Combining the automated device diagnosis with EP interpretation of unclassified tracings yielded improved accuracy. However, even with future improvements in automated algorithms, physician involvement will likely remain an essential component when exploring the utility of these devices for arrhythmia screening.Clinical trial registrationURL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/ Unique identifier: ACTRN12616001374459.

No abstract

Background Post‐operative imaging aims to assess fracture reduction and fixation with better resolution than intraoperative fluoroscopy (IF). However, this routine practice may increase costs and delay the discharge of patients. The aim of this study is to assess the role of post‐operative imaging in identifying patients that require a return to theatre following the use of IF. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a single health network comprising of two hospitals over 1 year. All fracture fixations that required IF were included. Patients who had post‐operative imaging were identified and complications requiring a return to theatre were obtained. Non‐trauma patients and those who did not have IF were excluded. Results A total of 1319 patients had IF. Of these patients, 1131 patients had post‐operative radiographs within 7 days of their operation. In total, 12 patients (1.1%) returned to theatre as a result of a finding identified in their post‐operative imaging. The calculated number of X‐rays required to be taken to identify a complication was 94. The main reasons identified for these cases to require a return to theatre despite having had IF included: (i) insufficient quality/views of IF, (ii) loss of position/new injury occurring in post‐operative period and (iii) poor reduction/fixation demonstrated intraoperatively that was missed/accepted. Conclusion The use of post‐operative radiographs can identify significant complications despite the use of IF in trauma patients. However, further consideration needs to be made regarding the benefits and costs of this practice in evaluating its clinical effectiveness.