PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 14, 2026European Heart Journal - Digital Health0 citationsOpen Access

QTc measurement using Apple Watch electrocardiogram in congenital long QT syndrome

View Full Paper
NSNicole J. van SteijnABAuke T. BergemanCWChristian van der Werf

Key Result

In patients with congenital long QT syndrome, Apple Watch mECGs showed a mean QTc difference of -21.7 ms compared to 12-lead ECGs, indicating potential but not complete accuracy.

Key Points

  • The aim is to validate the Apple Watch mobile ECG for QTc measurement in congenital long QT syndrome patients.
  • Cross-sectional, dual-centre study design
  • Patients underwent both 12-lead ECG and mobile ECG recordings
  • QT intervals measured by two blinded investigators
  • Accuracy evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis
  • Of 101 patients, 99 had suitable ECGs for analysis
  • Mean QTc on 12-lead ECG was 444.9 ms (Lead I) and 449.0 ms (Lead II)
  • Mean QTc on mobile ECG was 466.6 ms (Lead I) and 470.0 ms (Lead II)
  • Mean difference of −21.7 ms for Lead I and −21.0 ms for Lead II between 12-lead ECG and mobile ECG

Structured PICO

Does Apple Watch mobile ECG accurately measure QTc intervals compared to standard 12-lead ECG in patients with congenital long QT syndrome?

P
Population
99 paediatric and adult patients with congenital long QT syndrome (cLQTS) with suitable ECGs (from 101 enrolled), 15.2% younger than 18 years, 62.6% female.
I
Intervention
Apple Watch (AW) single-lead mobile electrocardiogram (mECG) recordings of Leads I and II
C
Comparator
Standard 12-lead ECG
O
Outcome
Agreement, systematic bias, and lead-specific feasibility of QTc measurement compared with standard 12-lead ECG (assessed via Bland-Altman analysis)surrogate

Apple Watch mobile ECG systematically overestimates QTc by approximately 21 ms compared to standard 12-lead ECG in patients with congenital long QT syndrome, suggesting it may complement but not replace standard monitoring.

Limitations

  • Lack of longitudinal validation
  • Lack of validation in unsupervised settings

Abstract

Abstract Aims In congenital long QT syndrome (cLQTS), monitoring of the heart rate–corrected QT interval (QTc) is essential as even transient prolongation can significantly increase the risk of torsades de pointes and sudden cardiac death. Apple Watch (AW) offers a single-lead mobile electrocardiogram (mECG), but its accuracy for QTc monitoring remains uncertain. The objective is to analytically validate AW mECGs for QTc measurement in paediatric and adult cLQTS patients, assessing agreement, systematic bias, and lead-specific feasibility compared with standard 12-lead ECG. Methods and results In this cross-sectional, dual-centre study, patients with cLQTS underwent consecutive 12-lead ECG, followed by mECG recordings of Leads I and II. QT intervals were measured by two blinded investigators, and accuracy was evaluated using Bland–Altman analysis. The study was deemed exempt from formal ethical approval by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Amsterdam UMC. Of 101 patients enrolled, 99 had ECGs suitable for QTc analysis; 15 (15.2%) were younger than 18 years and 62 (62.6%) were female. On 12-lead ECG, the mean QTc was 444.9 ± 30.2 ms (Lead I) and 449.0 ± 29.8 ms (Lead II), compared with 466.6 ± 28.9 ms (Lead I) and 470.0 ± 29.8 ms (Lead II) on mECG. The mean QTc difference (12-lead—AW) was −21.7 ms (95% limits of agreement: −53.1–9.7) for Lead I and −21.0 ms (−59.5–17.5) for Lead II. Conclusion In patients with cLQTS, AW-derived mECGs may complement, but not replace, standard 12-lead ECGs for QTc assessment, pending further validation in longitudinal and unsupervised settings.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Steijn et al. (2025) studied this question. In patients with congenital long QT syndrome, Apple Watch mECGs showed a mean QTc difference of -21.7 ms compared to 12-lead ECGs, indicating potential but not complete accuracy.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6967196bc0d1e3cfbfce8c21https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztaf142
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper