Quote
PoetKim
1. does it look like this watch would be useful for identifying afib? for distinguishing one type of arrhythmia from another? eg, afib vs aflutter vs ectopics?
For what you are asking, you'd need a heart rate monitor that records beat to beat. Can't tell if this does that. Most monitors present an average beat. An ECG device (like Kardia) is better than a heart rate monitor. The advantage of heart rate monitor is you can monitor over a long period of time - like overnight. With beat to beat, you can learn to distinguish ectopics from afib. With beat to beat heart rate monitor data, the defining feature of afib is the with range and randomness of the beat rate. Atrial ectopics usually have one or more beats in between at a baseline rate. At least on Polar heart rate straps, PVC's aren't seen, so the beat rate of a PVC is 1/2 that of the surrounding beats. Flutter typically presents with a very steady beat rate - with even less variability than normal heart rate variability.
We discussed this at length in these two Conference Room Sessions in 2006:
[
www.afibbers.org]
[
www.afibbers.org]
As a part of the second, UK optometrist and afibber, Mark Robinson, contributed a huge number of samples of various arrhythmias here:
[
www.afibbers.org]
Quote
PoetKim
2. do i need a second device to use it like phone or tablet, which i don't have? or can i read everything off the clockface?
You might be able to see heart rate, but likely not a recordinging over time as discussed above. Hard to say as the description of the device is very sparse. If the device works???? It would likely need to communicate with a phone app.
I would think your fingers on your radial pulse would do as good a job on afib, though ectopics can sometimes confuse. Fingers on pulse would not help with flutter, though a very steady rate >= 100 is likely flutter (a steady ~75 could also be flutter.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2021 01:56PM by GeorgeN.
