Prior to matching, patients using wearables were younger (mean age, 64.0 years vs 70.0 years P < .001) and healthier (mean CHA 2DS 2-VASc score, 3.6 vs 4.4 P < .001) compared with individuals not using wearables, with similar gender distribution (148 women vs 6722 women P = .91). Results Among 16 320 patients with AF included in the analysis, 348 patients used wearables and 15 972 individuals did not use wearables. The composite outcome included evaluation and management, ablation, cardioversion, telephone encounters, and number of rate or rhythm control medication orders. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean pulse rates from measures taken in the clinic or hospital and a composite health care use score were recorded. Data were analyzed from June 2020 through February 2021.Įxposure Using commercially available wearables with pulse rate or rhythm evaluation capabilities. Electronic medical records were reviewed to identify 125 individuals who used wearables and had adequate pulse-rate follow-up who were then matched using propensity scores 4 to 1 with 500 individuals who did not use wearables. Included patients were adults with at least 1 AF-specific International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision ( ICD-10) code from 2017 through 2019. Objective To characterize patients with AF who use wearables and compare pulse rate and health care use between individuals who use wearables and those who do not.ĭesign, Setting, and Participants This retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study included 90 days of follow-up of patients in a tertiary care, academic health system. The associations of wearables with health outcomes and health care use are unknown. Importance Increasingly, individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) use wearable devices (hereafter wearables) that measure pulse rate and detect arrhythmia. Shared Decision Making and Communication.Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine.Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment.Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience.Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography.
0 kommentar(er)
