1932

Abstract

There is a growing interest in using wearable devices to improve cardiovascular risk factors and care. This review evaluates how wearable devices are used for cardiovascular disease monitoring and risk reduction. Wearables have been evaluated for detecting arrhythmias (e.g., atrial fibrillation) as well as monitoring physical activity, sleep, and blood pressure. Thus far, most interventions for risk reduction have focused on increasing physical activity. Interventions have been more successful if the use of wearable devices is combined with an engagement strategy such as incorporating principles from behavioral economics to integrate social or financial incentives. As the technology continues to evolve, wearable devices could be an important part of remote-monitoring interventions but are more likely to be effective at improving cardiovascular care if integrated into programs that use an effective behavior change strategy.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-050919-031534
2021-01-27
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/med/72/1/annurev-med-050919-031534.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-050919-031534&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Timmis A, Townsend N, Gale C et al. 2018. European Society of Cardiology: cardiovascular disease statistics 2017. Eur. Heart J. 39:508–79
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Benjamin EJ, Muntner P, Alonso A et al. 2019. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2019 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 139:e56–e528
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Gao W, Emaminejad S, Nyein HYY et al. 2016. Fully integrated wearable sensor arrays for multiplexed in situ perspiration analysis. Nature 529:509–14
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Pevnick JM, Birkeland K, Zimmer R et al. 2018. Wearable technology for cardiology: an update and framework for the future. Trends Cardiovasc. Med. 28:144–50
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Gartner 2019. Gartner says global end-user spending on wearable devices to total $52 billion in 2020 Press Release, Oct. 30, Gartner Stamford, CT: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2019-10-30-gartner-says-global-end-user-spending-on-wearable-dev
  6. 6. 
    Jin H, Abu-Raya YS, Haick H 2017. Advanced materials for health monitoring with skin‐based wearable devices. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 6:1700024
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Nature Biotechnology 2019. Wearable technology in healthcare. Nat. Biotechnol. 37:376
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Kamišalić A, Fister I, Turkanović M, Karakatič S 2018. Sensors and functionalities of non-invasive wrist-wearable devices: a review. Sensors 18:1714
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Witt D, Kellogg R, Snyder M, Dunn J 2019. Windows into human health through wearables data analytics. Curr. Opin. Biomed. Eng. 9:28–46
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Aroganam G, Manivannan N, Harrison D 2019. Review on wearable technology sensors used in consumer sport applications. Sensors 19:1983
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Lang M. 2017. Beyond Fitbit: a critical appraisal of optical heart rate monitoring wearables and apps, their current limitations and legal implications. Albany Law J. Sci. Technol. 28:39
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Silina Y, Haddadi H. 2015. New directions in jewelry: a close look at emerging trends and developments in jewelry-like wearable devices Paper presented at 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Sep7–11 Osaka, Japan:
  13. 13. 
    Ip JE. 2019. Wearable devices for cardiac rhythm diagnosis and management. JAMA 321:337–38
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    January CT, Wann LS, Calkins H et al. 2019. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 74:104–32
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Gussak I, Vukajlovic D, Vukcevic V et al. 2012. Wireless remote monitoring of reconstructed 12-lead ECGs after ablation for atrial fibrillation using a hand-held device. J. Electrocardiol. 45:129–35
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Steinhubl SR, Waalen J, Edwards AM et al. 2018. Effect of a home-based wearable continuous ECG monitoring patch on detection of undiagnosed atrial fibrillation: the mSToPS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 320:146–55
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Tison GH, Sanchez JM, Ballinger B et al. 2018. Passive detection of atrial fibrillation using a commercially available smartwatch. JAMA Cardiol 3:409–16
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Perez MV, Mahaffey KW, Hedlin H et al. 2019. Large-scale assessment of a smartwatch to identify atrial fibrillation. New Engl. J. Med. 381:1909–17
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Halcox JPJ, Wareham K, Cardew A et al. 2017. Assessment of remote heart rhythm sampling using the AliveCor heart monitor to screen for atrial fibrillation. Circulation 136:1784–94
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Hickey KT, Hauser NR, Valente LE et al. 2016. A single-center randomized, controlled trial investigating the efficacy of a mHealth ECG technology intervention to improve the detection of atrial fibrillation: the iHEART study protocol. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 16:152
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Arnett DK, Blumenthal RS, Albert MA et al. 2019. 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 140:e596–e646
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Bunn JA, Navalta JW, Fountaine CJ, Reece JD 2018. Current state of commercial wearable technology in physical activity monitoring 2015–2017. Int. J. Exercise Sci. 11:503–15
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Rosenberger ME, Buman MP, Haskell WL et al. 2016. 24 hours of sleep, sedentary behavior, and physical activity with nine wearable devices. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 48:457–65
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Ridgers ND, McNarry MA, Mackintosh KA 2016. Feasibility and effectiveness of using wearable activity trackers in youth: a systematic review. JMIR mHealth uHealth 4:e129
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Larsen RT, Christensen J, Juhl CB et al. 2019. Physical activity monitors to enhance amount of physical activity in older adults—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Rev. Aging Phys. Act. 16:7
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Case MA, Burwick HA, Volpp KG, Patel MS 2015. Accuracy of smartphone applications and wearable devices for tracking physical activity data. JAMA 313:625–26
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Huang Y, Xu J, Yu B, Shull PB 2016. Validity of FitBit, Jawbone UP, Nike+ and other wearable devices for level and stair walking. Gait Posture 48:36–41
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    An H-S, Jones GC, Kang S-K et al. 2017. How valid are wearable physical activity trackers for measuring steps. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 17:360–68
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Höchsmann C, Knaier R, Eymann J et al. 2018. Validity of activity trackers, smartphones, and phone applications to measure steps in various walking conditions. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 28:1818–27
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Cook DJ, Thompson JE, Prinsen SK et al. 2013. Functional recovery in the elderly after major surgery: assessment of mobility recovery using wireless technology. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 96:1057–61
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Alharbi M, Bauman A, Neubeck L, Gallagher R 2016. Validation of Fitbit-Flex as a measure of free-living physical activity in a community-based phase III cardiac rehabilitation population. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 23:1476–85
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Patel MS, Foschini L, Kurtzman GW et al. 2017. Using wearable devices and smartphones to track physical activity: initial activation, sustained use, and step counts across sociodemographic characteristics in a national sample. Ann. Intern. Med. 167:755–57
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Patel MS, Polsky D, Kennedy EH et al. 2020. Smartphones vs wearable devices for remotely monitoring physical activity after hospital discharge: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open 3:e1920677
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Covassin N, Singh P. 2016. Sleep duration and cardiovascular disease risk: epidemiologic and experimental evidence. Sleep Med. Clin. 11:81–89
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    de Zambotti M, Claudatos S, Inkelis S et al. 2015. Evaluation of a consumer fitness-tracking device to assess sleep in adults. Chronobiol. Int. 32:1024–28
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    de Zambotti M, Baker FC, Willoughby AR et al. 2016. Measures of sleep and cardiac functioning during sleep using a multi-sensory commercially-available wristband in adolescents. Physiol. Behav. 158:143–49
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    de Zambotti M, Rosas L, Colrain IM, Baker FC 2017. The sleep of the ring: comparison of the ŌURA sleep tracker against polysomnography. Behav. Sleep Med. 17:124–36
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Kroll RR, McKenzie ED, Boyd JG et al. 2017. Use of wearable devices for post-discharge monitoring of ICU patients: a feasibility study. J. Intensive Care 5:64
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Teo JX, Davila S, Yang C et al. 2019. Digital phenotyping by consumer wearables identifies sleep-associated markers of cardiovascular disease risk and biological aging. Commun. Biol. 2:361
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Stergiou GS, Palatini P, Asmar R et al. 2018. Blood pressure monitoring: theory and practice. European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability teaching course proceedings. Blood Press. Monit. 23:1–8
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Little P, Barnett J, Barnsley L et al. 2002. Comparison of acceptability of and preferences for different methods of measuring blood pressure in primary care. BMJ 325:258–59
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Hinderliter AL, Voora RA, Viera AJ 2018. Implementing ABPM into clinical practice. Curr. Hypertens. Rep. 20:5
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Stojanova A, Koceski S, Koceska N 2019. Continuous blood pressure monitoring as a basis for ambient assisted living (AAL)—review of methodologies and devices. J. Med. Syst. 43:24
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Stergiou GS, Parati G, Vlachopoulos C et al. 2016. Methodology and technology for peripheral and central blood pressure and blood pressure variability measurement: current status and future directions—position statement of the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability. J. Hypertens. 34:1665–77
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Wang C, Li X, Hu H et al. 2018. Monitoring of the central blood pressure waveform via a conformal ultrasonic device. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2:687–95
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Stergiou GS, Alpert B, Mieke S et al. 2018. A universal standard for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices. Hypertension 71:368–74
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    van Helmond N, Freeman CG, Hahnen C et al. 2019. The accuracy of blood pressure measurement by a smartwatch and a portable health device. Hosp. Pract. 47:211–15
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Muntner P, Shimbo D, Carey RM et al. 2019. Measurement of blood pressure in humans: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension 73:e35–e66
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Hermsen S, Frost J, Renes RJ, Kerkhof P 2016. Using feedback through digital technology to disrupt and change habitual behavior: a critical review of current literature. Comput. Hum. Behav. 57:61–74
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Jo A, Coronel BD, Coakes CE, Mainous AG III 2019. Is there a benefit to patients using wearable devices such as Fitbit or health apps on mobiles? A systematic review. Am. J. Med. 132:1394–400
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Noah B, Keller MS, Mosadeghi S et al. 2018. Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. NPJ Digit. Med. 1:20172
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Patel MS, Asch DA, Volpp KG 2015. Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. JAMA 313:459–60
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Wang JB, Cataldo JK, Ayala GX et al. 2016. Mobile and wearable device features that matter in promoting physical activity. J. Mobile Technol. Med. 5:2–11
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Martin SS, Feldman DI, Blumenthal RS et al. 2015. mActive: a randomized clinical trial of an automated mHealth intervention for physical activity promotion. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 4:e002239
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Ramadi A, Haennel RG. 2019. Sedentary behavior and physical activity in cardiac rehabilitation participants. Heart Lung 48:8–12
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Volpp KG, John LK, Troxel AB et al. 2008. Financial incentive-based approaches for weight loss: a randomized trial. JAMA 300:2631–37
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Middleton KR, Anton SD, Perri MG 2013. Long-term adherence to health behavior change. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 7:395–404
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    McDermott MM, Spring B, Berger JS et al. 2018. Effect of a home-based exercise intervention of wearable technology and telephone coaching on walking performance in peripheral artery disease: the HONOR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 319:1665–76
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Thomas RJ, Beatty AL, Beckie TM et al. 2019. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation: a scientific statement from the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology. Circulation 140:e69–e89
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Huffman JC, Feig EH, Millstein RA et al. 2019. Usefulness of a positive psychology-motivational interviewing intervention to promote positive affect and physical activity after an acute coronary syndrome. Am. J. Cardiol. 123:1906–14
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Kahneman D. 2003. Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 93:1449–75
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    De Bondt WF, Thaler RH 1995. Financial decision-making in markets and firms: a behavioral perspective. Handb. Oper. Res. Manag. Sci. 9:385–410
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Chokshi NP, Adusumalli S, Small DS et al. 2018. Loss‐framed financial incentives and personalized goal‐setting to increase physical activity among ischemic heart disease patients using wearable devices: the ACTIVE REWARD randomized trial. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 7:e009173
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Finkelstein EA, Haaland BA, Bilger M et al. 2016. Effectiveness of activity trackers with and without incentives to increase physical activity (TRIPPA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4:983–95
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Chokshi NP, Adusumalli S, Small DS et al. 2018. Loss-framed financial incentives and personalized goal-setting to increase physical activity among ischemic heart disease patients using wearable devices: the ACTIVE REWARD randomized trial. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 7:e009173
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Patel MS, Small DS, Harrison JD et al. 2019. Effectiveness of behaviorally designed gamification interventions with social incentives for increasing physical activity among overweight and obese adults across the United States: the STEP UP randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern. Med. 179:1624–32
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Onken LS, Carroll KM, Shoham V et al. 2014. Reenvisioning clinical science: unifying the discipline to improve the public health. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 2:22–34
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Foster KR, Torous J. 2019. The opportunity and obstacles for smartwatches and wearable sensors. IEEE Pulse 10:22–25
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Goodyear VA. 2017. Social media, apps and wearable technologies: navigating ethical dilemmas and procedures. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 9:285–302
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Piwek L, Ellis DA, Andrews S, Joinson A 2016. The rise of consumer health wearables: promises and barriers. PLOS Med 13:e1001953
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Noseworthy PA, Kaufman ES, Chen LY et al. 2019. Subclinical and device-detected atrial fibrillation: pondering the knowledge gap: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 140:e944–63
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-050919-031534
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-050919-031534
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error