I was diagnosed in March and am still waiting for a follow up appointment. Ten days ago had a fall on the patio resulting in a trip to A&E and admission for 30 hours due to on going AF and monitoring due to bang on head resulting in my Bisoporol being doubled to 5mg a day. Doctor advised me to monitor heart rate/rhythm so GP can make further dose change if required before I get a follow up appointment. I have a basic smart watch but the bpm are all over the place, it records every hour and is between 47 and 123 . I also have a Kardia and that is showing bpm averaging 106 and indicates possible AF every time (twice a day) but the smart watch is nothing like this and I don't know which one t to trust, if any. Any suggestions would be gratefully received. Thank you.
Smart watch v Kardia?: I was diagnosed... - Atrial Fibrillati...
Smart watch v Kardia?
You don't trust watches and you don't trust the Kardia. But what you do trust is the EKG the Kardia generates. That will give you the real story.
It's easy to tell beats per minute by looking at the EKG. If you don't know how you can learn in a few minutes.
Learning how to read the EKG to tell you if you're in a fib takes a little longer. So until you know how best to send the EKG to your cardiologist for interpretation.
Jim
Here’s a copy and paste of a reply of mine to a recent post,
Instantaneous Heart Rate readings on devices when in AF are pretty much meaningless and you should only look at the average by counting beats in 60 seconds or look at the average on the kardia or watch ECG over 30 seconds.
Instantaneously 3 beats in a second can read as 180bpm and then a pause of 2 seconds might record a 30bpm. Both quite normal in my experience of AF.
Link to the post healthunlocked.com/afassoci...
Best wishes
".... or look at the average on the kardia or watch ECG over 30 seconds"
Just to clarify with respect to the Kardia, this means you should look at the HR reported on the recorded (completed) ECG rather than that shown while recording the ECG.
I believe the HR shown by the Kardia while recording is based on the previous 5 seconds, whereas the HR shown on the recorded ECG is based on the duration of the entire ECG recording. The latter (longer recording time) produces a more representative result, less prone to being distorted by timing of heart beats relative to the timing of the recording period starting/ending.
For example, given constant HR of approximately 60bpm. During a 5 second period, heart beats of 4, 5 or 6 could be recorded, depending on when the recording period starts relative to the timing of the first beat recorded. At extremes this could produce results of 48 - 72 bpm. However, during 30 seconds 29, 30 or 31 beats could be recorded, producing HR results of 58 - 62bpm.
It should noted that during an AF episode there can be significant beat to beat timing fluctuation. So distorted HR results are even more likely to occur during shorter recording periods, hence Buzby62's advice to refer to results from longer recordings i.e. 30 seconds to 1 minute.
I don't believe any of the smart watches are advised for use by those already diagnosed with A/F.....thats what my Fitbit tells me.
That’s the same for the Apple Watch I’m sure too when I was researching a new watch. I went for a Polar sports watch over the Apple Watch primarily due to battery life.
I’ve been in and out of AF every couple of days for about 3 months
I’ve had the watch now for a few months. The ECG function isn’t easy to read. However it can give me a confirmation when I feel I’m in AF cos the instant HR reading will be abnormal. It’s always on me whereas my Kardia I tend to leave at home
My Kardia gives me the best and easiest to read ECG in my opinion. Again I only use it when I think I’m in AF as a confirmation and then take Flecainide in the hope of reverting to NSR
I would disregard both!
I would ( and have invested) in a Blood Pressure monitor which not just automatically gives a blood pressure and heart rate reading but gives an indicator as to whether you are in AF. Omron, Microlife & Withings are a few decent brands approved by either NICE or BHF.
My experience with a variety of cardiac medical teams over the years is that it is no good looking at HR alone but you must look at Blood Pressure which is a vital part of problem solving.
Both my Apple Watch and (when I owned one) my Kardia were mostly accurate, with the Apple Watch unfailingly so and especially useful as it measures heart rate and variability over long periods and is ultra convenient and useful.
If you are experienced AF, the the ECG apps give an average reading, as others have said.
I am finding a new handheld ECG monitor to be really useful and reliable, giving a clean and clear trace and a good range of AI type determinations but with no monthly fee. It's called the Contec PM20 (I see Emay, a better known company in the UK, also sell the same new 6-lead model).
Steve
The EP I saw privately after the lowest dose of Bisoprolol proved too much for me to take daily, recommended a Kardia (and smart phone for the app) and thus changed my life!!After I sent him a reading of my heart in AF, he sent a prescription for Flecainide to my surgery for me to take as a Pip and now that I take it regularly I have ended the episodes though it might have increased the fatigue (but I am 80!)
The good thing about the Kardia is that you can e mail the EKG to yourCardio, GP or cardio nurses.
Kardia HANDS DOWN- or fingertips down!
I had an Apple Watch which constantly reset and often could not obtain a proper reading. Kardia was consistently clear and concise.
I have both but only rely on my Kardia as its more accurate for ECG.
Extract from one of my posts on another thread: "The Kardia mobile is reading the electrical activity of the heart beating, and will be accurate. If your heart beats when it has not yet filled with blood, (because it happens at random at the 'wrong' time) there will be a beat with no resulting pulse in increased blood pressure."
Sadly, most smart watches use a little (often green) light on the back to reflect into a sensor and measure the redness of your skin. The fine blood vessels expand during a normal heart beat, and in that manner it will see and count your pulse. This will not reveal what your heart is actually doing when in AF.
There are some smart watches that allow you to take an EKG over a 30 second period (Apple, some Samsung etc.) and these will produce a very similar result to the Kardia Mobile. So it is not 'smart watch versus Kardia' but which smart watch have you got?
I found it quite confusing after my pulse went high a few days after ablation - my Apple Watch showed sinus rhythm but an ecg in hospital showed I had an atrial flutter - not af! But after a bit of research I found this - very interesting (if it’s ok to share this link?)
My understanding is that Kardia was approved by NICE in 2018 for detection of AF, the NICE report found KardiaMobile has 'a high diagnostic accuracy per ECG recording'.
It was originally recommended to me by a private cardiologist, and my NHS cardiologist refers to Kardia readings on my phone when I see him in clinic.
I have no experience of the Apple watch but people say that is also good.
all the best
Cat
Yes, the Apple Watch ECG function is really good and accurate in my experience. It’s the standard Heart Rate monitor readings that are not so useful and meaningless in my opinion while in AF as the beats are varying so much and that is the same for any standard Heart Rate monitor while in AF. When in NSR the Heart Rate monitor is also very good on the Apple Watch.
Best wishes
Thank you everyone, will leave the smart watch and stick with the Kardia x