ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
QTc measurement using Apple Watch electrocardiogram in congenital long QT syndrome.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: In congenital long QT syndrome (cLQTS), monitoring of the heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTc) is essential as even transient prolongation can significantly increase the risk of torsades de pointes and sudden cardiac death. Apple Watch (AW) offers a single-lead mobile electrocardiogram (mECG), but its accuracy for QTc monitoring remains uncertain. The objective is to analytically validate AW mECGs for QTc measurement in paediatric and adult cLQTS patients, assessing agreement, systematic bias, and lead-specific feasibility compared with standard 12-lead ECG. Methods and results: In this cross-sectional, dual-centre study, patients with cLQTS underwent consecutive 12-lead ECG, followed by mECG recordings of Leads I and II. QT intervals were measured by two blinded investigators, and accuracy was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. The study was deemed exempt from formal ethical approval by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Amsterdam UMC. Of 101 patients enrolled, 99 had ECGs suitable for QTc analysis; 15 (15.2%) were younger than 18 years and 62 (62.6%) were female. On 12-lead ECG, the mean QTc was 444.9 ± 30.2 ms (Lead I) and 449.0 ± 29.8 ms (Lead II), compared with 466.6 ± 28.9 ms (Lead I) and 470.0 ± 29.8 ms (Lead II) on mECG. The mean QTc difference (12-lead-AW) was -21.7 ms (95% limits of agreement: -53.1-9.7) for Lead I and -21.0 ms (-59.5-17.5) for Lead II. Conclusion: In patients with cLQTS, AW-derived mECGs may complement, but not replace, standard 12-lead ECGs for QTc assessment, pending further validation in longitudinal and unsupervised settings.
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.