Remote heart monitoring is an integral part of cardiovascular treatment plans. And in the wake of the pandemic, countless more patients became in need of wearing these devices. Heart monitoring facilitated patient management, ensuring better care.
At the moment, there are various types of remote heart monitoring options on the market. One of the most popular ones is the AFib wrist monitor and patch.
The question is, which one would serve as a better alternative? Or would either do the job well? Here is a quick look at the AFib wrist monitor vs patch.
How Do AFib Monitors Work?
AFib is a widespread health problem causing heart palpitations, irregular heartbeat, chest pain, and more. The risk of the condition increases with age, accounting for around 1 in 5 cases of AFib.
An AFib monitor watch or any heart rate monitor is here to correlate the patient’s symptoms with their heart rhythm for a set amount of time.
The doctor can then print the collected data on the device and see how the heart is doing.
It helps physicians get a better perspective of what is happening in the system so that they can choose an adequate therapy.
Active monitoring has contributed to fewer hospitalizations, better health management, and diagnosis.
AFib Wrist Monitor vs Patch: Which One Works Best?
Latest technological advances have allowed companies to create practical heart monitoring devices. They are easy to carry and quick to get used to. But, to understand the impact and effect of either an AFib wrist monitor or a patch, it is important to take a look at their distinctive properties. You can then decide for yourself which one works best.
AFib Wrist Monitor
At first, the wrist monitor was all about tracking basic movement. Like fitness and training. Not soon after its release, it could estimate a person’s heart rate. Since it features a sensor, it can detect changes in circulation through the skin.
Currently, there are smartwatches with uniquely tailored sensors to record and trace the ECG signature. Then alert the user if they are experiencing an irregular rhythm. Some time ago, FDA approved Apple’s ECG sensor and an app featuring an algorithm to detect AFib.
These wrist-worn devices are great at collecting data, Harvard experts explain.
According to a 2020 study, frequently used optical heart rate sensors, like an AFib monitor watch, creates generally accurate heart rate readings.
They are convenient and practical devices for regular use. But, their reliability and accuracy may not always be on point. The most viable wrist heart rate readings stay 90% of the time within 5% of the heart rate measured in the chest.
Regardless, the optical readings, data, and estimates are best kept as reference, not to diagnose a particular health problem. Their readings are not always accurate and are prone to error. Users would still need to check in with a doctor to see if the information collected is correct. That’s why experts believe it is too early to be using wristwatches to screen for AFib.
AFib Patch
Based on a recent survey, 93.7% of patients prefer patch monitors over any other monitoring device, particularly a Holter monitor. People like the idea of wearing a patch, instead of attaching electrodes to their bodies. Patches seem to be the most comfortable to wear and still demonstrate the necessary benefits. For instance, solutions like the UPOlife patch people can just easily glue to their chest and strat monitor their heart condition and receive detailed information about various health trends for 72 hours, while living their normal lives.
According to experts, at-home, wearable patches can spot AFib early.
Using the Zio XT wireless patch, for example, created a significant improvement in diagnosing AFib in patients who actively used the device. The patch monitors ECG readings through the skin, detecting irregular heartbeat.
With the Zio Patch, the device gets stuck on the user’s left pectoral region and records constant beat-to-beat ECG. Making it a practical choice for observing cardiac rhythm for a maximum of 14 days. Research indicates that the Zio Patch features a higher diagnostic yield to detect atrial fibrillation.
As well as prevention of strokes a year. This could provide patients with a significant boost in yearly medical cost savings and better monitoring. But, the robustness and quality of offline patches can’t compare with an online system. They don’t have the constant processing power as an online system does.
The signaling capacity is another concern. The battery and weight of the patch trigger motion a lot more than ECG wires. Plus, people have to carry a wireless gateway or a smartphone to transmit the necessary data. These are all disadvantages that might cause issues.
Final Verdict
Every heart monitoring strategy has its own uses. The constant technological advances have paved the way for practical tools to monitor heart health. They’ve now become a key component in healthcare for patients in need of regular monitoring. Whether AFib wrist monitor vs patch is a better choice is based on personal preference.
They are both prone to errors but have their own uses and benefits.
Overall, both options can prove generally useful. There is enough research that shows their potential for regular use.
Nevertheless, people are still advised to consult with a healthcare professional regularly when using either of these devices.
The possibility of error and miscalculation are evident and expert opinion is always necessary when interpreting heart rhythm readings. With options such as these, people can take an active step in understanding their cardiovascular state.
People can be better equipped to handle their health and ask for treatment solutions when necessary.
Which of these options best resonates with you? Share your thoughts in the comment section below.
Originally published at https://www.upolife.com.
