ArticleOpen heart2022
Prediction of atrial fibrillation using a home blood pressure monitor with a high-resolution system.
Article in Open heart, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection:2023
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe usefulness of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) using several home blood pressure (BP) monitors has been reported. We evaluated the accuracy of a high-resolution system (HiRS) for AF prediction and its usefulness when installed in home BP monitors.
methodsIn patients with paroxysmal, persistent or permanent AF, ECG recording and BP measurements were performed simultaneously. The relationship between ECG rhythm diagnosis and pulse irregularity recognition, using a home BP monitor with HiRS, was investigated. The severity of a pulse disturbance during BP measurement was displayed as an irregular pulse rhythm symbol (IPRS) in three instances. The IPRS was not displayed if the pulse was regular, turned on if there was a weak variation in the pulse, and blinked if there was a strong variation in the pulse.
resultsOne hundred and seven patients (44 paroxysmal AF, 63 persistent or permanent AF) were enrolled, and a total of 333 recordings were analysed. The rhythms recorded by each ECG were 73 sinus regular rhythms, 35 extrasystoles, 222 AFs and 3 atrial flutters. Sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of any arrhythmia by the IPRS display of the BP monitor were 95.8% (95% CI 92.6% to 97.6%) and 96.8% (95% CI 92.6% to 100%), respectively. In addition, sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of AF were 100% (95% CI 97.5% to 100%) and 74.8% (95% CI 65.6% to 82.5%), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of AF by the IPRS blinking display were 88.3% (95% CI 83.3% to 92.2%) and 94.6% (95% CI 88.6% to 98.0%%), respectively. IPRS exhibited lighting or blinking during AF occurrence; however, during sinus rhythm, IPRS was not displayed in 72 out of 73 recordings.
conclusionThe IPRS device predicted AF with precision and may be particularly useful for predicting an arrhythmia attack in patients with paroxysmal AF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.