Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I have an Apple Watch 1st generation since 3+ years.
I take all showers with it, go the sea, bang it on everything ... i didn't take a good care of it and it only has a few small scratches on the display! Nothing else! Works without a problem every day!

I keep looking for a reason to upgrade it and when i've seen that the new Apple Watch has ECG i was sold. Especially that i found out i have some hearth problems!

Now i'm reading this news ...
 
I have an Apple Watch 1st generation since 3+ years.
I take all showers with it, go the sea, bang it on everything ... i didn't take a good care of it and it only has a few small scratches on the display! Nothing else! Works without a problem every day!

I keep looking for a reason to upgrade it and when i've seen that the new Apple Watch has ECG i was sold. Especially that i found out i have some hearth problems!

Now i'm reading this news ...
My heart problems only started with hearing this news
 
Is anything available at launch anymore? Dual-sim nope, AirPlay 2 nope, AirPower what’s that, ECG naw, Apple Pay cash no sir, portrait mode beta. Apple has developed a bad habit it seems.
That's sign of a lack of innovation – you don't have enough good stuff to announce on schedule so you start announcing stuff still in the making.
 
So in Italy, no ECG and a single carrier supporting esim. Can't think of a reason to upgrade at launch. I moved here 5 years ago and had no idea that features I took for granted in the US aren't available here, or if they are, have limited functionality or adoption
 
I understand your point, but there are myriad uses for the EKG that have great value in medical research. For example, I do research studying the EKG as a biomarker for the development of Parkinson's disease. We are working on algorithms to identify Parkinson's many years before the motor symptoms present--which would allow the intervention with disease modifying therapies at a time when they're most likely to be effective. There are numerous other examples of this, and having this type of data to mine will create amazing opportunities to identify associations with other diseases as well.

Is your data derived from lead 1 ECGs?
 
Buyers should understand the difference between multilead ECGs that allow for rhythm diagnosis and single lead monitors that merely screen by detecting only rate and rhythm. Irregular rate has a broad differential diagnosis. Has any technical medical guidance been published to help physicians understand how to interpret these Apple Watch findings? This thing is screening only, right? Screening raises Bayesian issues of false positives and false negatives that need to be managed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dave00 and kdarling
This and the iPhone Xs just reinforce why it is becoming pointless to buy new Apple products at launch. Neither offer any real advantages over the previous generation besides bragging rights (especially at the high pricing levels). Surely it's better to wait 6 months or so until all the features have actually been implemented and apps are actually starting to take advantage of them before upgrading - and you may even get a discount!
[doublepost=1536836316][/doublepost]
Buyers should understand the difference between multilead ECGs that allow for rhythm diagnosis and single lead monitors that merely screen by detecting only rate and rhythm. Irregular rate has a broad differential diagnosis. Has any technical medical guidance been published to help physicians understand how to interpret these Apple Watch findings? This thing is screening only, right? Screening raises Bayesian issues of false positives and false negatives that need to be managed.

I'd assume that their application to the FDA is for a device to act as guidance rather than diagnosis as this will require far less testing. The idea is that the Watch would flag up a potential heart issue for which you then go to the doctor to get a 'proper' diagnosis using high-end equipment.
 
Buyers should understand the difference between multilead ECGs that allow for rhythm diagnosis and single lead monitors that merely screen by detecting only rate and rhythm. Irregular rate has a broad differential diagnosis. Has any technical medical guidance been published to help physicians understand how to interpret these Apple Watch findings? This thing is screening only, right? Screening raises Bayesian issues of false positives and false negatives that need to be managed.
The purpose of the ECG is to alarm you when the Apple's algorithm detects unusual readings so you can visit your doctor and get properly checked. The readings it provides are not intended to be used by your doctors nor to provide you any diagnose. Just a couple of sensors that try to detect if anything is wrong with your body. Nothing else.
 
  • Kardia/Alivecor has had an Apple hardware and app to read ECG withe upload to physician for over 2 years. My cardiologist was impressed with it when I showed him years ago. Quite impressive as I can read ECGs and are very accurate.

Yeah, not sure why Apple thought they could claim having "the first over the counter ECG", when they're not even close to being first. Especially with Alivecor having gotten FDA approval for their Apple Watch related device last year:

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/11/30/alivecor-kardia-ekg-band-medical-fda-apple-watch/

As someone else noted, you can also buy such devices off Amazon in the UK and EU.

The Apple COO probably forgot to include some qualifying phrase in his speech.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mdmitchell
I hope everyone knows this is pretty much worthless for 99% of users. Why don't we ALL get EKGs every day or every time we go to the doctor? because there's no reason to and it would lead to false positive diagnoses with harm caused to patients. "Should not be used for patients with known arrythmias." So this is basically for an extremely small subset of buyers who have some kind of coronary artery disease or heart pathology that makes them susceptible to possibly developing A-fib.
I do research with AFib. About 200,000 people are diagnosed with it every year in the U.S. It, however, can go undiagnosed for years if symptoms are mild or only occasional. Some people don't ever have noticeable symptoms but have pretty severe AFib. It pays a significant role in over 130,000 deaths every year in the U.S. It is a significant risk factor for strokes (you should see what damage it can do to people's brains; it's shocking). But AFib is treatable and with proper treatment has limited other problems associated with it. Sure, this feature might only help some thousands of people at first but it's helping change the health care industry. The ECG in an Apple Watch is arguably the most important thing Apple has done in the past 10 years or more. It's not hyperbole to say this will save lives and improve people's quality of life.
 
The purpose of the ECG is to alarm you when the Apple's algorithm detects unusual readings so you can visit your doctor and get properly checked. The readings it provides are not intended to be used by your doctors nor to provide you any diagnose. Just a couple of sensors that try to detect if anything is wrong with your body. Nothing else.
You describe a screening tool. I’m still searching for technical literature on its screening characteristics. I disagree that the readings are not intended to be “used” by doctors. Patient comes in to report that their watch told them something. Doctors would want to know precisely what the patient was seeing, what the watch told them. Not “my watch found something unusual”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave00
My doctors don’t seem to have an issue with the heart features on the wearables. Just take it for what it is.

One note. If you already have an implanted defibrillator, you may not be able to use this feature. I read the “what not to do’s” for Boston Scientific ICD’s and they don’t want you to use a wearable Unit. Passes a small current across chest that could affect the ICD. Hope there are warnings.
 
Yeah, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the FDA's approach regarding approvals is more along the lines of "go ahead, but we'll go after you if it turns out to be unsafe or completely unfit for its purpose", whereas most other health authorities will require more data regarding safety and effects before they approve a product.

Bascially: Reactive vs proactive action. Both have their pros and cons – one allows for a quicker time-to-market with less red tape, while the other is usually better at weeding out bad or dangerous products before they do harm.
You're wrong.
[doublepost=1536843024][/doublepost]I think this is a cool wow feature but mostly useless. I was also disappointed to see they can only recognize normal or atrial fibrillation - Afib can already be identified by the heart rate monitor! I hope with machine learning they can make progress on identifying more abnormal rhythms. Given the power of modern tech the algorithms for identifying rhythms could use some machine learning magic and updating.
 
I certainly wish that had been an available feature last year.

For a few weeks in the beginning of last year I had some weird symptoms heart related and my doctor told me to go to a clinic next time it occurred. Well it occurred just once after that (and at a time I could not go to a clinic) and never after. But had I had access to something like this it would have been quite useful for my doctor.

Anyway, I'll hold on to my series 2 for now, but if/once the feature becomes available in Canada I think I will get one.
 
...
One note. If you already have an implanted defibrillator, you may not be able to use this feature. I read the “what not to do’s” for Boston Scientific ICD’s and they don’t want you to use a wearable Unit. Passes a small current across chest that could affect the ICD. Hope there are warnings.

Got Afib and an ICD/ implanted defi... Hope they really say if it's possible to wear it or the option to deactivate the measurement.
It's a question how it works, could be dangerous but it doesn't need to be.
For example, for me it is dangerous to use a scale with bodyanalysisfunction but no problem using ecg at Hospital. Think, if it works passive (most ecg are passiv), anything is fine, if it send electronic impulses in the body, it's dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rugmankc
While I think this will be a useful feature, I have a real problem with them referring to it as an ECG. The implication when you say "ECG" is that this will be the same 12-lead ECG that you receive from a medical professional, and it is not. This is a single-lead, which we generally refer to as a "rhythm strip" rather than an ECG. A rhythm strip will tell you about the heart rhythm, but does not contain all the useful information in a 12-lead ECG, like whether there are signs of ischemia (heart muscle that is not getting enough oxygen), evidence of a prior heart attack, or heart muscle hypertrophy. I am concerned about a false sense of security if, say, a person is having chest pain and then they think they can rely on their watch to tell them if they're having a heart attack.

The second problem is the watch suggesting someone may have atrial fibrillation based on the regularity of their heartbeat. Yes, monitoring for the regularity of a heartbeat can tell you there may be an arrhythmia. But that's what the watch should say, NOT that you may have atrial fibrillation, which can only be diagnosed by checking the heart rhythm, and even then sometimes the diagnosis is difficult. The watch should simply say your heartbeat is irregular and suggest doing the "ECG" function, which you can take to your doctor.
[doublepost=1536849204][/doublepost]
You're wrong.
[doublepost=1536843024][/doublepost]I think this is a cool wow feature but mostly useless. I was also disappointed to see they can only recognize normal or atrial fibrillation - Afib can already be identified by the heart rate monitor! I hope with machine learning they can make progress on identifying more abnormal rhythms. Given the power of modern tech the algorithms for identifying rhythms could use some machine learning magic and updating.
Nope, that's the problem - a-fib cannot be identified by anything but a rhythm reading, and even then sometimes it's difficult. Just looking for an irregular rhythm does not tell you the etiology of that abnormal rhythm. Thus a heart rate monitor cannot identify afib, though it can suggest a rhythm abnormality.
[doublepost=1536849258][/doublepost]
I only saw an ECG.
These are one and the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Easttime
How is watch ECG different from currently available phone apps like Cardiio which measure and record waveform for about 20 seconds by putting finger over the camera? Ectopic heartbeat shows very clearly here when I have it.

New Note.jpeg
IMG_0139.jpg
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.