ArticleJACC. Advances2025
Noninvasive Hemodynamic Assessment by a Sensor Patch: The PATCHWRK (PortAble TeCHnology for Wireless caRdiomyopathy tracKing) Study.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEchocardiographic timing intervals provide prognostic information in patients with preclinical cardiac dysfunction. Reduced diastolic filling time (DFT) identifies left bundle branch block patients at risk for cardiomyopathy. The need for specialized equipment limits the utility of echocardiography (echo) for longitudinal assessment.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate a multimodal sensor patch's (SANSA) assessment of DFT, pre-ejection period (PEP), and left ventricular ejection time (LVET).
methodsFifty patients undergoing echo were prospectively enrolled and had simultaneous SANSA patch recording and echo. Timing intervals were analyzed using continuous wave, pulsed wave, and tissue Doppler imaging. SANSA electrocardiogram, seismocardiogram, and phonocardiogram data were independently analyzed to identify valve openings/closures for DFT, PEP, and LVET estimation. Agreement between echo and SANSA estimates was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and compared with agreement between echo views.
resultsForty-six of the 50 patients (92%) had analyzable data. The mean ejection fraction was 53% ± 8%; 13 patients (26%) had left bundle branch block. Echo-estimated mean DFT, PEP, and LVET were 416 ± 139 milliseconds (ms), 108 ± 32 ms, and 300 ± 36 ms, respectively. SANSA-estimated DFT, PEP, and LVET were 431 ± 135 ms, 91 ± 35 ms, and 285 ± 43 ms, respectively. The ICC for SANSA vs echo was 0.92 for DFT, 0.74 for PEP, and 0.76 for LVET. The ICC for tissue Doppler imaging vs pulsed wave estimates within the same patients was 0.93 for DFT, 0.83 for PEP, and 0.69 for LVET.
conclusionsSANSA patch monitoring accurately measures key cardiac timing intervals to within the variability observed between echo views. As these intervals have prognostic value, SANSA-based longitudinal monitoring may facilitate early cardiomyopathy detection.
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.