Tag Archives: apps for afib

What Is Behind The Significant Changes In AliveCor’s Kardia Mobile ECG App?

The Skeptical Cardiologist is a strong proponent of empowering patients with atrial fibrillation by utilizing personal cardiac rhythm devices such as Afib Alert or AliveCor’s Kardia.

I’ve written about my experiences with the initial versions of the Kardia mobile ECG device and the service it provides here and here.

I have been monitoring dozens of my afib patients using AliveCor’s Physician Dashboard.

Recently AliveCor changed fundamentally the way their app works such that for new users much of the functionality I described in my previous posts now requires subscribing to their Premium service which costs $9.99 per month or $99 per year.

What Has Changed With The Kardia App

The Kardia device which works with both iOs and Android smart
phones is unchanged and still generates a “medical-grade” single lead rhythm strips which appears within the Kardia app.

Screenshot from AliveCor’s website showing the Kardia recording device being utilized with the obtained  typical ECG recording displayed on the smartphone app.

 

 

The app still is reasonably accurate at identifying atrial fibrillation or normal heart rhythms and offers a fee-based service for interpretation of unclassified ECGs.

However, for new purchasers of Kardia,  the capability to access, email or print prior ECG recordings has gone away. Prior to March of this year, Kardia users could access prior ECG tracings which were stored in the cloud  by touching the “Journal” button on the app. These older tracings could be emailed and they were available through the cloud for a physician like myself to review at any time.

Now new Kardia purchasers will find that when they make an ECG recording they have the option to email a PDF of the ECG but once they hit the DONE button it is gone and is not stored anywhere.

For my patients purchasing after March, 2017 this means that unless they  purchase Kardia Premium service I will not be able to view their ECG recordings online.

An AliveCor account executive summarized for me the changes as follows:

We added a significant number of features over the past year and a half, and grandfathered all users on March 16th, 2017. New users now have the option to download and use Kardia for free, but the premium services are $9.99/mo or $99/year. Kardia Premium allows unlimited storage and history of their EKGs, summary reports with longitudinal data, blood pressure monitoring and tracking weight and medication.

Why Journal Functionality Is Important

If you purchased your AliveCor/Kardia device prior to March 16th, 2017 ago the journal  functionality still works. Let’s call such customers “Journal Grandfathered”.

This Journal functionality is important in a number of ways:

  1. My Journal Grandfathered patients can bring their phones with them during an office visit and we can review all of their ECG tracings.
  2. Journal gGandfathered Kardia users can email their old tracings to their physicians or to anyone they wish (even the skeptical cardiologist!). They can also print them out and save PDFs of the tracings.
  3. I  can view through my online physician account all of my Journal Grandfathered patients. This means any time a patient of mine makes a recording that is unclassified or suggests atrial fibrillation I can be notified and immediately view it online.

This fundamental change took place as AliveCor attempts to convince  purchasers of the Kardia device to use their Premium service.

Why AliveCor Changed The Kardia App Function

Dr. David Albert, inventor and  cardiologist and the founder of AliveCor was kind enough to talk with me about this change.

He indicates that of the 150,000 AliveCor users, 10,000 are now using the Kardia Premium service. About 20% of new users elect Kardia Premium.

Prior to the change all AliveCor users had their old ECG recordings stored in the cloud in a HIPPA compliant fashion. This free service was costing AliveCor quite a bit and the company felt it was best to switch to a subscription service to provide this secure cloud storage.

With the change to the (relatively inexpensive)  subscription service, patients will get additional features. As the AliveCor account executive described:

Kardia Premium allows unlimited storage and history of their EKGs, summary reports with longitudinal data, blood pressure monitoring and tracking weight and medication.

 

 

I’ve looked at the Premium service and it seems quite useful when combined with a connected physician utilizing Kardia Pro.  I’ll evaluate the Premium service and the physician Kardia Pro service  further and write a full post on its features in the near future.

If you are not grandfathered and want to stick with the Basic Kardia service you still have an immensely useful and  inexpensive device which allows personal detection of your cardiac rhythm. Just remember to email yourself the ECG recording you just made before you hit DONE.

Nonarrhythmically Yours,

-ACP

AfibAlert Versus AliveCor/Kardia: Which Mobile ECG Device Is Best At Accurately Identifying Atrial Fibrillation?

The skeptical cardiologist has been testing the comparative accuracy of two hand-held mobile ECG devices in his office over the last month. I’ve written extensively about my experience with the AliveCor/Kardia (ACK) device here and here. Most recently I described my experience with the Afib Alert (AA) device here.

Over several days I had my office patients utilize both devices to record their cardiac rhythm and I compared the device diagnosis to the patient’s true cardiac rhythm.

Normal/Normal

In 14 patients both devices correctly identified normal sinus rhythm. AFA does this by displaying a green check mark , ACK by displaying the actual recording on a smartphone screen along with the word Normal.

The AFA ECG can subsequently uploaded via USB connection to a PC and reviewed in PDF format. The ACK PDF can be viewed instantaneously and saved or emailed as PDF.

 

Normal by AFA/Unreadable or Unclassified by AliveCor

In 5 patients in normal rhythm (NSR) , AFA correctly identified the rhythm but ACK was either unreadable (3) or unclassified (2). In the not infrequent case of a poor ACK tracing I will spend extra time adjusting the patient’s hand position on the electrodes or stabilizing the hands. With AFA this is rarely necessary.

In this 70 year old man the AFA device recording was very good and the device immediately identified the rhythm as normal.

Chaput AFA SR

ACK recording was good quality but its algorithm could not classify the rhythm.

GC Unclassified

A 68 year old man who had had bypass surgery and aortic valve replacement had a very good quality AFA recording with correct classification as NSRChaput AFA SR

AliveCor/Kardia recordings on the same patient despite considerable and prolonged efforts to improve the recording were poor and were classified as “unreadable”

Scott AC unreadable
Alivecor tracing shows wildly varying baseline with poor definition of p wave

 

False Positives

There were 3 cases were AFA diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) and the rhythm was not AF. These are considered false positives and can lead to unncessary concern when the device is being used by patients at home. In 2 of these ACK was unreadable or unclassified and in one ACK also diagnosed AF.

A 90 year old woman with right bundle branch block (RBBBin NSR was classified by AFA as being in AF.

VA AFA read as AF
Slight irregularity of rhythm combined with a wider than normal QRS from right bundle branch block and poor recording of p waves likely caused AFA to call this afib
VA unclassified RBBB
AliveCor tracing calls this unclassified. The algorithm does not attempt to classify patients like this with widened QRS complexes due to bundle branch block.

The ACK algorithm is clearly more conservative than AA. The ACK manual states:

If you have been diagnosed with a condition that affects the shape of your EKG (e.g., intraventricular conduction delay, left or right bundle branch block,Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome, etc.), experience a large number of premature ventricular or atrial contractions (PVC and PAC), are experiencing an arrhythmia, or took a poor quality recording it is unlikely that you will be notified that your EKG is normal.

 

One man’s rhythm confounded both AFA and AC. This gentleman has had atrial flutter in the past and records at home his rhythm daily using his own AliveCor device which he uses in conjunction with an iPad.IMG_8399.jpg

During our office visits we review the recordings he has made. He was quite bothered by the fact that he had several that were identified by Alivecor as AF but in fact were normal.

Screen Shot 2017-05-06 at 11.48.47 AM
These are recordings Lawrence made at home that i can pull up on my computer. He makes a daily recording which he repeats if he is diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. In the two cases above of AF a repeat measurement was read as normal. Of the two cases which were unclassified , one was normal with APCs and the other was actually atrial flutter

A recording he made on May 2nd at 845 pm was read as unclassified but with a heart rate of 149 BPM. The rhythm is actually atrial flutter with 2:1 block.

Screen Shot 2017-05-06 at 11.47.37 AM

Sure enough, when I recorded his rhythm with ACK although NSR (with APCS) it was read as unclassified

Screen Shot 2017-05-06 at 11.49.49 AM

AFA classified Lawrence’s rhythm as AF when it was in fact normal sinus with APCs.

AFA Mcgill AF

 

 

One patient a 50 year old woman who has a chronic sinus tachycardia and typically has a heart rate in the 130s, both devices failed.

We could have anticipated that AC would make her unclassified due to a HR over 100 worse than unclassified the tracing obtained on her by AC (on the right)was terrible and unreadable until the last few seconds. On the other hand the AFA tracing was rock solid throughout and clearly shows p waves and a regular tachycardia. For unclear reasons, however the AFA device diagnosed this as AF.

 

 

Accuracy in Patients In Atrial Fibrillation

In 2/4 patients with AF, both devices correctly classified the rhythm..

In one patient AFA correctly diagnosed AF whereas ACK called it unclassified.

This patient was in afib with HR over 100. AFA correctly identified it whereas ACK called in unclassified. The AC was noisy in the beginning but towards the end one can clearly diagnose AFScreen Shot 2017-05-06 at 8.39.06 AMScreen Shot 2017-05-06 at 8.11.53 AM

In one 90 year old man AFA could not make the diagnosis (yellow)

Screen Shot 2017-05-06 at 11.35.40 AM

ACK correctly identified the rhythm as AF

Screen Shot 2017-05-06 at 11.37.51 AM

One patient who I had recently cardioverted from AF was the only false positive ACK. AliveCor tracing is poor quality and was called AF whereas AFA correctly identified NSR>

Screen Shot 2017-05-06 at 8.42.46 AMScreen Shot 2017-05-06 at 8.42.26 AM

 

 

Overall Accuracy

The sensitivity of both devices for detecting atrial fibrillation was 75%.

The specificity of AFA was 86% and that of ACK was 88%.

ACK was unreadable or unclassified 5/26 times or 19% of the time.

 

The sensitivity and specificity I’m reporting is less than reported in other studies but I think it represents more real world experience with these types of devices.

Summary

In a head to head comparison of AFA and ACK mobile ECG devices I found

-Recordings using AfibAlert are usually superior in quality to AliveCor tracings with a minimum of need for adjustment of hand position and instruction.

-This superiority of ease of use and quality mean almost all AfibAlert tracings are interpreted whereas 19% of AliveCor tracings are either unclassified or unreadable.

-Sensitivity is similar. Both devices are highly likely to properly detect and identify atrial fibrillation when it occurs.

-AliveCor specificity is superior to AfibAlert. This means less cases that are not AF will be classified as AF by AliveCor compared to AfibAlert. This is due to a more conservative algorithm in AliveCor which rejects wide QRS complexes, frequent extra-systoles.

Both companies are actively tweaking their algorithms and software to improve real world accuracy and improve user experience but what I report reflects what a patient at home or a physician in office can reasonably expect from these devices right now.

-ACP

Do NOT Rely on AF Detect Smartphone App To Diagnose Atrial fibrillation

I’m writing this brief post as a warning to any individuals who have purchased the  smartphone app AF Detect (screen shot below from Apple app store.) It is not a reliable detector of atrial fibrillation (AF).

screen-shot-2017-02-19-at-11-25-56-am

 

A patient of mine with AF recently  purchased this app unbeknownst to me. He  relied on its faulty information which  reassured hm he was not in AF when in fact he was in AF. Such misinformation has the potential to lead to dangerous delays in diagnosis.

There are multiple reviews on the Apple and Google app sites which confirm the total lack of reliability of this app to diagnose AF with screen-shot-2017-02-19-at-9-18-10-ammultiple instances of both failure to detect known AF and inappropriate diagnosis of AF when rhythm was not AF.

In the description of the app the company says the app will “transform you rmobile device into a personal heart rate monitor and atrial fibrillation detector”.

However after purchasing the app and before using it you see this disclaimer which img_8348states it is not to be used for any medical diagnosis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will be performing a more detailed analysis of this app’s performance in the future and contacting the FDA about the danger such inaccurate medical testing confers on victims.

In the meantime if you have any experience with this app or other apps claiming to detect AF reliably using detection of the pulse from finger application to the camera lens please share them with me (via email  DRP@theskepticalcardiologist.com or via comments below.)

-ACP