Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Over 2,000 Participants Received Irregular Heart Rhythm Notification in Apple Watch Study

Robin4 said:
Early in the morning I had an operation and they implanted a cardio messenger to alert them of any complications.
Click to expand...

This - how technology is so useful. Just by the heart-rate and allied smart monitoring. No real ECG used.

On top of watching a HD movie on a 5" screen, sending "lol" filled text messages, etc., this use of monitoring aid is what makes the current gadgets wonderful.

(Things like Fitbit, other smartwatches can also do the same - if connected and monitored)
 
Your sister should have just gone to see a cardiologist rather than relying on a watch to diagnose a heart issue, if it’s something she was concerned about.

izyreal said:
That's 2,000 people that were potentially the receipients of life altering help. My sister got an Apple watch because she suspected heart issues.
Click to expand...
 
robjulo said:
Your sister should have just gone to see a cardiologist rather than relying on a watch to diagnose a heart issue, if it’s something she was concerned about.
Click to expand...
Heart problems are often intermittent. Many conditions present infrequently, are episodic and of short duration, including various arrhythmias such as Afib, PVCs and SVT. These are often benign, but they can also be indicative of a major (but often very treatable) issue. Early detection can be key to preventing much bigger problems down the road.

The odds are everything would check out just fine during that short, very expensive visit to the cardiologist, and you essentially will have gotten a false negative—much worse than a false positive.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Shanghaichica and bobob
As others have suggested, the two other necessary data points are how many of those alerts represented actual pathoarrhythmias (true positives), and how many participants who didn’t get an alert actually didn’t have a pathoarrhythmia (true negatives). That 2000 alert stat is meaningless otherwise.
 
briloronmacrumo said:
Today's Wall Street Journal offers a less sanguine and independent perspective: "Apple Watch Has Mixed Results in Big Heart Study"
Click to expand...
To me the important part of this article:
"the watch has potential to detect some atrial-fibrillation cases 'you would not get otherwise'". So yeah the results are mixed with potential life saving information for those found to have AFIB where it won't be detected by traditional means. However, we can expect this type of tele-information to get better in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: briloronmacrumo and ErikGrim
Baymowe335 said:
I’d rather have more data about my health than less and if I am checked out “OK” after being notified of an issue, I’m not mad at Apple.
Click to expand...
Yes YOU would like more data about your health but Apple has now data on your health and anyone they choose to share it with (getting life insurence? Oh Apple has "shared" that information)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9081094
I7guy said:
To me the important part of this article:
"the watch has potential to detect some atrial-fibrillation cases 'you would not get otherwise'". So yeah the results are mixed with potential life saving information for those found to have AFIB where it won't be detected by traditional means. However, we can expect this type of tele-information to get better in the future.
Click to expand...
I really think this is such an underrated feature. Maybe it doesn’t happen much in the US but in the UK there have been several young footballers that have collapsed on pitch during matches and died. It was later discover that they had AFIB. Something like this feature could have detected the issue earlier and saved lives.
[doublepost=1552813461][/doublepost]
robjulo said:
Your sister should have just gone to see a cardiologist rather than relying on a watch to diagnose a heart issue, if it’s something she was concerned about.
Click to expand...
It’s not that easy in the UK. I have tachycardia. If I go to my GP and complain about it they won’t do anything. They will just say it’s fine. They won’t send me to a cardiologist, they won’t do an ECG. I would like to try out this feature when it becomes available in the UK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AstonSmith, I7guy and DemianM
Well, I have received my Apple Watch yet, but if it flags my heartbeat I'm going to ignore it as I just had a complete physical done. It's a tool not a magical device.
 
Seemed to be a 34% success rate, not bad in my book and it will only get better.

"One-third (34 percent) of the participants who received irregular pulse notifications and followed up by using an ECG patch over a week later were found to have atrial fibrillation."
 
WatchFromAfar said:
Yes YOU would like more data about your health but Apple has now data on your health and anyone they choose to share it with (getting life insurence? Oh Apple has "shared" that information)
Click to expand...
These people were part of a study. Proof Apple shares your health data without you knowing?
 
Bonte said:
"One-third (34 percent) of the participants who received irregular pulse notifications and followed up by using an ECG patch over a week later were found to have atrial fibrillation."
Click to expand...

So, are you just throwing numbers on the wall and what sticks? Or, do you have some reference linked to the 34% success number where it can be verified?
 
A physician will place a person in a thirty day heart holter monitor if there is a concern for an intermittent issue that could be deadly. I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous comments on macrumors, but “get an Apple Watch” instead of “go see your doctor” pretty much takes the cake.

PickUrPoison said:
Heart problems are often intermittent. Many conditions present infrequently, are episodic and of short duration, including various arrhythmias such as Afib, PVCs and SVT. These are often benign, but they can also be indicative of a major (but often very treatable) issue. Early detection can be key to preventing much bigger problems down the road.

The odds are everything would check out just fine during that short, very expensive visit to the cardiologist, and you essentially will have gotten a false negative—much worse than a false positive.
Click to expand...
 
Khedron said:
This heart study has nothing to do with the EKG, S4 watches are not part of the study. In principle the same benefits can be applied to other non-EKG devices.
[doublepost=1552759296][/doublepost]

Good points but shouldn't we also consider the wider context of people's health and technology? For example, how cheap and widely available is a scale (or mirror)? How much evidence is there that being overweight affects your health? How many people are still overweight?

Because Apple insists on requiring an iPhone to use an Apple Watch the total cost of ownership is in the region of $1000 per patent. Does that represent the best use of money? Of course then you consider this is in the US where medical bills are already astronomical, and the iPhone and Watch have other uses too...
Click to expand...
The iPhone requirement for an Apple Watch was a strategic decision at Apple. They may have sold more watches if they worked with Android phones but that decision would have come with its own set of issues related to data privacy and the iOS & Watch OS compatibility so I am fine with the iPhone requirement. The good thing is Apple Watch does not require the latest iPhone so if a person is really budget conscious, they could always purchase an older model iPhone to use with their watch.

I don't think most people would choose to spend money on any type of a heart monitor unless they already had a reason to suspect they had a medical condition (either a "self diagnosed" concern or their doctor telling them they were at a higher risk of heart problems). What I see as the beauty of the Apple Watch is that millions of people were already wearing them for other reasons (tracking physical activity, reading text messages without pulling their phone out of their pocket, calendar reminders, weather alerts, navigation, etc.). This Apple Watch is likely to notify thousands of people (out of the millions of AW users) to a serious health issue they may have but not been aware of until the watch detected a potential problem. I also think the ability to capture an electro cardiogram anytime, anywhere and immediately send it to a primary care physician is a huge benefit. However, as a cyclist and mountain biker, my favorite feature on the newest AW is the shock detector that can call 911 for me if I have a bad accident and I'm unable to make that call myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abazigal and Shanghaichica
Khedron said:
Good points but shouldn't we also consider the wider context of people's health and technology? For example, how cheap and widely available is a scale (or mirror)?

Because Apple insists on requiring an iPhone to use an Apple Watch the total cost of ownership is in the region of $1000 per patent. Does that represent the best use of money? Of course then you consider this is in the US where medical bills are already astronomical, and the iPhone and Watch have other uses too...
Click to expand...

The total cost of ownership to self monitor for a potential patient you quoted is about $1000 with an iPhone and an Apple Watch - fine. To make a blunt dollar amount is misleading, to say the least. How about quoting a similar cost for an alternative smartphone and a monitoring device (smartwatch or Fitbit type device) combo simultaneously to see how much more the Apple system costs, and if the comparison is fair? Especially, if the costs are not compromised by data mining or advertising interests.

An iPhone SE 32GB and the previous generation Apple Watch 3 together cost about $600 with tax. The similar Android can cost $300-400 - are you willing to bet a life on the basis of this savings?
 
KPandian1 said:
The worst a false positive does is send someone for further rhythm monitoring by a pro - worth the hassle.

The first post is sarcasm.
Click to expand...
I don't agree, it's a legitimate question. Otherwise, why shouldn't all 419,000 people go get checked out? If the Apple Watch is massively over-aggressive in its diagnosis, how do we know it's not for example massively under-reporting in the rest of the people in the study?

Plus, it would just be nice to have a baseline accuracy number confirmed by further diagnosis, so we can track the accuracy over time as the tech (hopefully) improves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back