The skeptical cardiologist has often sung the praises of the AliveCor Mobile ECG for home and office heart rhythm monitoring (see here and here.) However, there is a significant rate of failure of the device to accurately identify atrial fibrillation. I’ve seen numerous cases where the device read afib as “unclassified” and normal sinus rhythm (usually with PVCs or PACs) called afib both in my office and with my patient’s home monitors.
In such cases it is easy for me to review my patient’s recordings and clarify the rhythm for them.
For those individuals who do not have a cardiologist available to review the recordings, AliveCor offers a service which gives an option of having either a cardiac technician or cardiologist review the tracing. The “cardiac technician assessment” costs $9 and response time is one hour. The “Clinical Analysis and Report by a U.S. Board Certified Cardiologist” costs $19 with 24 hour response time.
Obviously, I have no need for this service but I’ve had several readers provide me with their anecdotal experiences with it and it hasn’t been good.
One reader who has a familial form of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy utilizes his AliveCor device to monitor for PVCs. One day he made the following recording which AliveCor could not classify:
He then requested a technician read which was interpreted as “atrial fibrillation sustained.”
He then had requested the cardiologist reading which came back as Normal Sinus Rhythm.
Finally, he again requested the technician
read and got the correct reading this time which is normal sinus rhythm with PACs
When my reader protested to Kardia customer service about this marked inconsistency: three different readings in a 24 hour period, a Kardia customer service rep responded :
I was able to review this with our Chief Medical Officer who advised that the recording shows Sinus Rhythm with PACs. The Compumed report seldom provides identification of PACs and PVCs as most cardiologists believe they are not significant findings. The sustained AFib finding was incorrect, so I have refunded the $5 fee you had paid.
Please let us know if you have any other questions.
As I pointed out in my post on palpitations, most PVCS are benign but some are not and patients with palpitation would like to know if they are having PVCS and/or PACs when they feel palpitations.
More importantly, the misdiagnosis of afib when the rhythm is NSR with PACs or PVCs can lead to extreme anxiety.
Heres a recording
I made in my office this morning on a patient with cardiomyopathy and a defibrillator.
This is very clearly NSR with PVCs yet AliveCor diagnosed it as “possible atrial fibrillation.”
The AliveCor algorithm is not alone in making frequent errors in the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.
The vast majority of ECGs performed in the US come with an interpretation provided by a computerized algorithm and medical personnel rely on this interpretation until it can be verified or corrected by an overreading cardiologist.
One study demonstrated that computerized ECG interpration (ECG-C) is correct only 54% of the time when dealing with a rhythm other than sinus rhythm
Another study found that 19% of ECG-C misinterpreted normal rhythm as atrial fibrillation. Failure of the physician ordering the ECG to correct the inaccurate interpretation resulted in change in management and initiation of inappropriate treatment, including antiarrhytmic medications and anticoagulation, in 10% of patients. Additional unnecessary diagnostic testing was performed based on the misinterpreted ECGs in 24% of patients.
When lives or peace of mind are at risk you want your ECG interpreted by a cardiologist.
I would like to take this opportunity to personally issue a challenge to IBM’s Watson.
Hey, Watson, I bet $1,000 I can Interpret cardiac rhythm from an ECG with more accuracy than you can!
Are you listening, IBM?
Do you copy, Watson?