Mobile health solutions for atrial fibrillation detection and management: a systematic review

• Published in: Clinical research in cardiology Vol. 111; no. 5; pp. 479 - 491
• Main Authors: Hermans, Astrid N. L., Gawalko, Monika, Dohmen, Lisa, van der Velden, Rachel M. J., Betz, Konstanze, Duncker, David, Verhaert, Dominique V. M., Heidbuchel, Hein, Svennberg, Emma, Neubeck, Lis, Eckstein, Jens, Lane, Deirdre A., Lip, Gregory Y. H., Crijns, Harry J. G. M., Sanders, Prashanthan, Hendriks, Jeroen M., Pluymaekers, Nikki A. H. A., Linz, Dominik
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.05.2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Atrial Fibrillation - diagnosis; Atrial Fibrillation - therapy; Cardiac arrhythmia; Cardiology; Comparators; Disease management; EKG; Electrocardiography; Fibrillation; Health care; Humans; Literature reviews; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Platforms; Population studies; Review; Reviews; Support systems; Systematic review; Telemedicine; Wearable technology; mHealth; Systematic review; Atrial fibrillation
• ISSN: 1861-0684; 1861-0692; 1861-0692
• DOI: 10.1007/s00392-021-01941-9

Aim We aimed to systematically review the available literature on mobile Health (mHealth) solutions, including handheld and wearable devices, implantable loop recorders (ILRs), as well as mobile platforms and support systems in atrial fibrillation (AF) detection and management. Methods This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The electronic databases PubMed (NCBI), Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane were searched for articles published until 10 February 2021, inclusive. Given that the included studies varied widely in their design, interventions, comparators, and outcomes, no synthesis was undertaken, and we undertook a narrative review. Results We found 208 studies, which were deemed potentially relevant. Of these studies included, 82, 46, and 49 studies aimed at validating handheld devices, wearables, and ILRs for AF detection and/or management, respectively, while 34 studies assessed mobile platforms/support systems. The diagnostic accuracy of mHealth solutions differs with respect to the type (handheld devices vs wearables vs ILRs) and technology used (electrocardiography vs photoplethysmography), as well as application setting (intermittent vs continuous, spot vs longitudinal assessment), and study population. Conclusion While the use of mHealth solutions in the detection and management of AF is becoming increasingly popular, its clinical implications merit further investigation and several barriers to widespread mHealth adaption in healthcare systems need to be overcome. Graphic abstract Mobile health solutions for atrial fibrillation detection and management: a systematic review.