What Cardiologists Think About the Apple Watch's Heart-Tracking Feature (sfgate.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from SFGate: The newest Apple Watch can now flag potential problems with your heartbeat -- a feature that's been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and that Apple is marking as a major achievement. But some doctors said that including heart-monitoring tools in such a popular consumer product could prompt unnecessary anxiety and medical visits. Physicians say the watch could be good for patients who have irregular heart rhythms but may not realize it. Some people who have atrial fibrillation, the condition for which the watch is screening, don't always have noticeable symptoms. In an ideal situation, someone who doesn't know they have a problem could get a warning from their watch and take that data to their doctor.

But there is also concern that widespread use of electrocardiograms without an equally broad education initiative could burden an already taxed health-care system. Heart rhythms naturally vary, meaning that it's likely that Apple Watch or any heart monitor could signal a problem when there isn't one -- and send someone running to the doctor for no reason. "People are scared; their heart scares them," John Mandrola, a cardiologist at Baptist Health in Louisville, said. "That leads to more interaction with the health-care system." An extra visit to your doctor may not sound like a bad thing, but Mandrola said it would potentially lead to another round of tests or even unnecessary treatment if there are other signs that can be misinterpreted. And doctors might wind up facing a crowd of anxious Apple Watch users getting false signals -- something physicians have already had to deal with as fitness trackers that monitor heart rates have become popular.

Comments

Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[khchung]

it would potentially lead to another round of tests or even unnecessary treatment if there are other signs that can be misinterpreted.

The same could be said for any visit to any doctor for any reason, so that means any visit to the doctor may be harmful?

Sound like a problem with American doctors than with anything else.

Re:Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[Anubis IV]

Yeah, it struck me as an odd comment. I mean, suppose 9 in 10 alerts are false positives (which I'd assume is an absurdly high number). The cost for a false positive in this sort of situation is relatively low: patients go in, get some simple tests, confirm they're fine, and go home. There are no ongoing costs to the patient or the system.

But what about that 1 in 10 who isn't a false positive? If we assume that they wouldn't have otherwise had their heart problems noticed until years later after the symptoms had grown severe enough to become noticeable in more significant ways, I'd wager that catching the problem at such an early point would be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper in the long run. After all, what would have otherwise taken heart surgeries, expensive medications, and numerous visits to fix could instead—at least in some cases—be addressed by a handful of visits and some adjustments to lifestyle. You'd be able to prevent so much harm from ever happening that you'd save a tremendous amount of time and money for each true positive.

Even if it's just 1 in 10 that it gets right, the benefit for that 1 would almost certainly be FAR more than enough to outweigh the cost of the 9. And, as I said earlier, I sincerely doubt it gets as many as 9 out of 10 wrong.

Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[shilly]

Which is why single-payer systems typically have gatekeeping mechanisms, such as GP referrals.

This is a solved problem.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[ooloorie]

Having an honest politician run the country is not what most people want, they want more money and they will vote for the best liar who tells them they will get more money. They won't get more money, the richest people will, same as always.

Corbyn is a self-described socialist. In light of that and the history of socialism, the rest of your comment is profoundly ironic.

But Americans need object lessons in real-world socialism and fascism again, now that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are gone. So go for it! It's not my life you're wrecking.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[serviscope_minor]

Congratulations, this is the stupidest post I've read on the internet today. It's a high par to pass but you passed it.

Your argument is: GP wants single payer healthcare. Some stupid straw man you've invented says that some people who want single payer also want open borders. OMFG GP SI TEH MORAN single healthcare means open borders.

Your post has everything:

* reactionary bigotry about anyone who disagrees on any aspect of politics
* aggresive stupidity
* entire armies of straw men
* ignoring that places other than America exist
* flagrant disregard for reality
* angrily making shit up

Re:Speaking for me and mine

[shmlco]

"Collectively, you will overburden the healthcare system."

We have a "concern" to that effect from a single doctor who hasn't been anywhere near the device in question. In fact, the software that does the heart analysis and ECG won't even ship with the product on launch, but will arrive later.

And yet there's "concern" that some as yet unknown number of "false positives" could overwhelm the health care system. As opposed to potentially reducing the number of emergency room visits due to heart attacks, the number of heart surgeries required due to late treatment of symptoms, and even deaths.

On the flip side, the head of the American Heart Association was on stage during the introduction, thrilled with the announcement and the advantages it would provide.

Let's see... head of the American Heart Association... some unknown doc from Kentucky... head of the American Heart Association... some unknown doc from Kentucky... hmmm.