Connect
MJA
MJA

Smartphones and wearable technology: benefits and concerns in cardiology

David Jin, Heath Adams, Anthony M Cocco, William G Martin and Sonny Palmer
Med J Aust 2020; 212 (2): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50446
Published online: 3 February 2020

The global expansion of wearable technology combined with smartphone access creates new questions and opportunities in the diagnosis and management of cardiac conditions

Wearable devices along with smartphone technology are becoming more common in developed nations such as Australia, with the number of connected devices expected to increase from 526 million in 2017 to over 1.1 billion worldwide in 2022.1 This new source of health information has led to novel methods of patient assessment, such as a single‐lead electrocardiograph (ECG) creating a pre‐presentation observation chart. This creates a paradigm shift where instead of symptomatic patients being referred for cardiac assessment, asymptomatic patients are now presenting with health data. In this article, we discuss the technology behind the devices, common brands and formats, potential applications, and advantages and disadvantages of wearable devices.


  • 1 St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
  • 2 Medicine at St Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
  • 3 University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS


Correspondence: david.jin@outlook.com

Acknowledgements: 

We acknowledge Gadfit.com for providing images of the Garmin Forerunner 735XT PPG based wristwatch. We thank Dr Rebecca Dang for her contributions that greatly improved the manuscript.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Statista. Wearable technology – statistics and facts. https://www.statista.com/topics/1556/wearable-technology/; (viewed Nov 2019).
  • 2. Henriksen A, Haugen Mikalsen M, Woldaregay AZ, et al. Using fitness trackers and smartwatches to measure physical activity in research: analysis of consumer wrist‐worn wearables. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20: e110.
  • 3. Laukkanen RM, Virtanen PK. Heart rate monitors: state of the art. J Sports Sci 1998; 16(Suppl): S3–S7.
  • 4. Stahl SE, An HS, Dinkel DM, et al. How accurate are the wrist‐based heart rate monitors during walking and running activities? Are they accurate enough? BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2016; 2: e000106.
  • 5. Allen J. Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical physiological measurement. Physiol Meas 2007; 28: R1–R39.
  • 6. De Ridder B, Van Rompaey B, Kampen JK, et al. Smartphone apps using photoplethysmography for heart rate monitoring: meta‐analysis. JMIR Cardio 2018; 2: e4.
  • 7. Tison GH, Sanchez JM, Ballinger B, et al. Passive detection of atrial fibrillation using a commercially available smartwatch. JAMA Cardiol 2018; 3: 409–416.
  • 8. Perez MV, Mahaffey KW, Hedlin H, et al. Large‐scale assessment of a smartwatch to identify atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 1909–1917.
  • 9. Halcox JPJ, Wareham K, Cardew A, et al. Assessment of remote heart rhythm sampling using the AliveCor heart monitor to screen for atrial fibrillation: the REHEARSE‐AF Study. Circulation 2017; 136: 1784–1794.
  • 10. Orchard J, Neubeck L, Freedman B, et al. eHealth tools to provide structured assistance for atrial fibrillation screening, management, and guideline‐recommended therapy in metropolitan general practice: the AF‐SMART Study. J Am Heart Assoc 2019; 8: e010959.
  • 11. Brieger D, Amerena J, Attia J, et al. National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation 2018. Heart Lung Circ 2018; 27: 1209–66.
  • 12. Marston H, Hadley R, Banks D, et al. Mobile self‐monitoring ECG devices to diagnose arrhythmia (AR) that coincide with palpitations: a scoping review. Healthcare (Basel) 2019; 7: 96.
  • 13. Koshy AN, Sajeev JK, Nerlekar N, et al. Smart watches for heart rate assessment in atrial arrhythmias. Int J Cardiol 2018; 266: 124–127.
  • 14. Gold MR. Treatment of subclinical atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2018; 137: 217–218.
  • 15. Sperlich B, Holmberg H‐C. Wearable, yes, but able…?: it is time for evidence‐based marketing claims! Br J Sports Med 2017; 51: 1240.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.