Background: The relative accuracy of pulsatile photoplethysmography applications (PPG) or handheld (HH) devices compared with the gold standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) for the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation is unknown.
Methods: Digital databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Raw data were pooled using a bivariate model to calculate diagnostic accuracy measures and estimate Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (HSROC).
Results: A total of 10 articles comprising 4296 patients (mean age 68.9 years, with 56% males) were included in the analysis. Compared with EKG, the pooled sensitivity of PPG and HH devices in AF detection was 0.93 (95% CI 0.87-0.96; p < 0.05) and 0.87 (95% CI. 0.74-0.94; p < 0.05), respectively. The pooled specificity of PPG and HH devices in AF detection was 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.94; p < 0.05) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.90-0.98; p < 0.05), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio was 129 and 144 for PPG and HH devices, respectively. Fagan's nomogram showed the probability of a patient having AF and normal rhythm on PPG or HH devices was 2-3%, while the post-test probability of having AF with an irregular R-R interval on PPG or HH devices was 73% and 82%, respectively. The scatter plot of positive and negative likelihood ratio showed high confirmation of AF and reliability of exclusion of absence of irregular R-R intervals (positive likelihood ratio > 10, and negative likelihood ratio < 0.1) on HH devices while PPG was used as confirmation only.
Conclusions: The PPG or HH devices can serve as a reliable alternative for the detection of AF.
Keywords: Atrial fibrillation; Pulsatile photoplethysmography Signals; Screening; Smart devices.
© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.