Apple Watch Chief Jeff Williams Says ECG App is 'Huge Opportunity' to Empower People About Their Health

[sirozha]

Open a support call then. That's the normal route to follow when you feel your device is not behaving as expected.

Six different watches, two different Series, two different people. Two watches were replaced for that very reason. I think there's nothing more I can do other than wait for Apple to improve the accuracy.

If you think this is an isolated case, google it. The Internet is replete with reports of how inaccurate the heart-rate monitor is in the Apple watch. That's why real athletes don't use the Apple watch and instead use specialized watches designed for athletes.

 

[jonblatho]

His personal experience, maybe?

What if I told you that experience does not equal qualification to broadly discuss a topic from a scientific perspective?

By your logic, having gone through a bad snowstorm or tornado puts one on the same level as a meteorologist to discuss weather. Would you accept a forecast from Joe down the street whose family's house was flattened by a tornado 20 years ago because of "his personal experience"?

 

[jona2125]

Haha, how should that work ... attack is something not really foreseeable ... that’s the inherent nature of an heart attack.

You wanna have none, live healthy, even then no guarantee

You've never observed a patient on a 15 lead then. You can actually see the block happening real time. You can also have a heart attack and not have gone through any real symptoms as well.

 

[mdmitchell]

FDA only “cleared” it as it’s does not cause harm. It is NOT an FDA certified medical device.

I don't think you understand the clearance process. No, the device does not directly cause harm, but it does have risks, which are spelled out in the FDA approval letter (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf18/DEN180044.pdf). FDA does not certify devices (i.e. endorse their effectiveness)--it determines whether the device and manufacturer meet regulatory requirements and whether the device does what its labeling claims it does. Clearance does not mean the device is better or worse than other devices on the market.

 

[ipponrg]

If 48 is your heart rate in the middle of a workout, I would suggest getting a real heart-rate monitor (not the one in the Apple Watch) and monitor your heart rate while you are working out. I bet it's the Apple Watch that is giving your inaccurate readings. Personally, I think the Apple Watch heart-rate monitor is extremely inaccurate and unreliable. I've had four Apple Watches so far, with the latest one being Series 3, and none of them can reliably detect heart-rate during exercise either for me or for my wife.

Another thing you can do is buy a bluetooth heart-monitor strap and connect it to your Apple Watch. You may get a better accuracy this way.

Now, if your heart rate really turns out to be 48 during a workout, I would suggest you see a cardiologist.

Just get a chest strap. It will be accurate even when lifting weights.

 

[mdmitchell]

Say what you want. It's also different for different people. In my household, two people have been wearing Apple watches for three years now. Heart rate monitor is the weakest feature for us.

But the ECG feature is measuring in a much different manner, and the software is set up to not interpret the recording if there are dropouts or other problems affecting reliability of the recording.

 

[yaxomoxay]

"I'd rather bother my doctor with a few false positives"

I can tell you how your doctor feels about the above statement...

Doctor is 100% free of telling me to seek medical business elsewhere, or to accept my false positives and get his $$$ from the insurance and myself.

 

[sirozha]

The Apple Watch is the first ever wearable device certified by the FDA as a bona fide medical device. Do not forget this.

It's not certified as a medical device.

 

[Heineken]

If 48 is your heart rate in the middle of a workout, I would suggest getting a real heart-rate monitor (not the one in the Apple Watch) and monitor your heart rate while you are working out. I bet it's the Apple Watch that is giving your inaccurate readings. Personally, I think the Apple Watch heart-rate monitor is extremely inaccurate and unreliable. I've had four Apple Watches so far, with the latest one being Series 3, and none of them can reliably detect heart-rate during exercise either for me or for my wife.

Another thing you can do is buy a bluetooth heart-monitor strap and connect it to your Apple Watch. You may get a better accuracy this way.

Now, if your heart rate really turns out to be 48 during a workout, I would suggest you see a cardiologist.

I double check with normal heart monitor in the gym. I run marathons, 48 is very normal for me.

 

[sirozha]

But the ECG feature is measuring in a much different manner, and the software is set up to not interpret the recording if there are dropouts or other problems affecting reliability of the recording.

My point was that I would prefer Apple to improve the accuracy of the heart monitor rather than enabling the 2-lead ECG feature.

 

[citysnaps]

It is inaccurate during the exercise, brisk walk, running, etc. It's usually accurate when you initiate the measurement when you are at rest. However, the Apple Watch also takes its own measurement every 5 minutes or so, and that one is quite often completely off.

Mine certainly isn't.

Maybe you should purchase and actually use an Apple Watch before making such pronouncements based on conjecture.

 

[Heineken]

Did it really tell you to "seek help" or did it say the recording was uninterpretable??
A below-normal rate like that is called bradycardia. It is normal in many patients, especially athletes, but it can be evidence of an arrhythmia too. Part of the value of having a device like this (I've been a Kardia user for 2 1/2 years) is that it allows you to know what your normal range is, both resting and exercising.

My resting HR is 40-ish if i don't smoke weed.

 

[mdmitchell]

One more thing: 98.3 percent sensitivity in detecting AFib and 99.6 percent specificity in distinguishing it from sinus rhythm is really good by the standard of diagnostic tests used for other purposes. Only 1 in 250 readings called "possible atrial fibrillation" isn't.

Sensitivity = true positive / (true positive + false negative)
Specificity = true negative / (true negative + false positive)

 

[npmacuser5]

Say it again, Apple Watch collects raw data and presents it in an easy to understand format. It does Not provide a diagnosis, that needs a medical professional. If it reports erratic heart data, the smart move call your doctor, or I’m case just email them the results you are getting with any symptoms and or additional information. I would not run off to the ER unless the additional symptoms were indicator of a heart attack. One more very good tool to help us manage our health better. From personal experience, does a very good job.

 

[Hodar1]

What about those who rely on the false negatives and NOT see a doctor?

And they weren't seeing a MD anyway? One of the tests that "my" doctors do at my annual checkup, is listen to my heart at various points. Now, I cannot speak to your doctor, or your medical history, or your age - but if you ignored heart pain, or other symptoms, and the AW doesn't pick it up - AT THAT POINT IN TIME - odds are ~98% it will the next reading.

If you do see a MD regularly, and closing in on 60 means I visit my doctor every quarter or more; then not only does he have an EKG as needed (12 lead, in my case); he also has access to a history of 2 lead EKGs. I see this as a win-win.
[doublepost=1544116774][/doublepost]

Haha, how should that work ... attack is something not really foreseeable ... that’s the inherent nature of an heart attack.

You wanna have none, live healthy, even then no guarantee

Umm, I believe real time diagnosis of a Heart Attack "as it happens" and the capability to call a Medical Emergency via the iPhone without human interaction. This could save lives.

 

[groadyho]

My resting HR is 40-ish if i don't smoke weed.

Ahaha that's funny, weed makes my HR in the 40's,,,chill. Must be some paranoia inducing or racy sativas your way.

 

[adamski23]

Does the watch automatically know which wrist the watch is on or do you have to select it before performing the reading? Electrode position is vital in a proper readout. I'm also wondering how it will handle artifacts (i.e., non-cardiac electrical activity)?

While I understand apple's reasoning behind this (I think its cool also), in my honest opinion, there are significant downsides to having too much insight into one's physical health.

I posted this a while back and my sentiments remain.

 

[sirozha]

And they weren't seeing a MD anyway? One of the tests that "my" doctors do at my annual checkup, is listen to my heart at various points. Now, I cannot speak to your doctor, or your medical history, or your age - but if you ignored heart pain, or other symptoms, and the AW doesn't pick it up - AT THAT POINT IN TIME - odds are ~98% it will the next reading.

If you do see a MD regularly, and closing in on 60 means I visit my doctor every quarter or more; then not only does he have an EKG as needed (12 lead, in my case); he also has access to a history of 2 lead EKGs. I see this as a win-win.
[doublepost=1544116774][/doublepost]
Umm, I believe real time diagnosis of a Heart Attack "as it happens" and the capability to call a Medical Emergency via the iPhone without human interaction. This could save lives.

Most men don’t get annual checkups. I never have. Maybe it’s routine in other countries, but not in the US.

In the US, it’s routine for kids to get annual checkups, and most women see an OBGYN annually, but most men don’t do annual checkups.

If the choice is between $500 for a visit to a cardiologist with a test vs paying $500 for an Apple Watch with an EKG feature, what do you think most people with no chest pain will choose?

I think those who suspect a heart condition while being asymptotic should see a specialist. Relying on the Apple Watch to be your cardiologist is dangerous.

I am sure that the absolute majority will give more credence to the EKG feature than it deserves. If the EKG feature shows no issues, most people will not see a doctor. If it shows an issue, most people will go to see to the doctor. In either case, the watch may be giving you a false result.

 

[jonblatho]

One more thing: 98.3 percent sensitivity in detecting AFib and 99.6 percent specificity in distinguishing it from sinus rhythm is really good by the standard of diagnostic tests used for other purposes. Only 1 in 250 readings called "possible atrial fibrillation" isn't.

Sensitivity = true positive / (true positive + false negative)
Specificity = true negative / (true negative + false positive)

But greater than zero, so Apple has clearly wasted a whole bunch of time and money on something that is obviously useless.

(Sarcasm.)

 

[MrGimper]

Glad it's not available in the UK yet.... I can keep telling my wife she's a heartless b*tch and she still can't prove otherwise.

 

[sirozha]

Does the watch automatically know which wrist the watch is on or do you have to select it before performing the reading? Electrode position is vital in a proper readout. I'm also wondering how it will handle artifacts (i.e., non-cardiac electrical activity)?

While I understand apple's reasoning behind this (I think its cool also), in my honest opinion, there are significant downsides to having too much insight into one's physical health.

I posted this a while back and my sentiments remain.

You have to tell your watch which hand you are wearing it on.

 

[IdentityCrisis]

If 48 is your heart rate in the middle of a workout, I would suggest getting a real heart-rate monitor (not the one in the Apple Watch) and monitor your heart rate while you are working out. I bet it's the Apple Watch that is giving your inaccurate readings. Personally, I think the Apple Watch heart-rate monitor is extremely inaccurate and unreliable. I've had four Apple Watches so far, with the latest one being Series 3, and none of them can reliably detect heart-rate during exercise either for me or for my wife.

Another thing you can do is buy a bluetooth heart-monitor strap and connect it to your Apple Watch. You may get a better accuracy this way.

Now, if your heart rate really turns out to be 48 during a workout, I would suggest you see a cardiologist.

That's funny because it's been rated the most accurate of any watch.

 

[sirozha]

Glad it's not available in the UK yet.... I can keep telling my wife she's a heartless b*tch and she still can't prove otherwise.

No heart rate?

 

[IdentityCrisis]

It is inaccurate during the exercise, brisk walk, running, etc. It's usually accurate when you initiate the measurement when you are at rest. However, the Apple Watch also takes its own measurement every 5 minutes or so, and that one is quite often completely off.
[doublepost=1544114744][/doublepost]
I can type up a list here. It doesn't matter, though, because Cook is not listening. I sent him an email the other day. Maybe someone will read it although I doubt it.

I've measured mine during exercise and wore fitbits at the same time and both are within a few numbers of each other. Why does it seem to me that you are against Apple and will say anything to make it look bad. I have a feeling you've never owned an Apple watch and just an Android person? Either way, you are coming across very wrong to everyone here and aren't correct in a lot of what you say.

 

[sirozha]

That's funny because it's been rated the most accurate of any watch.

Source?