When the Apple Watch gets a little more medically aware and stories like this one spread Apple won't be able to make enough of them. They will be flying off the shelves. So much for the negative blathering here about how the Watch doesn't do anything more than the iPhone and is therefore useless and redundant and won't sell and is a fail for Apple. Millions will be wearing them. Oh wait, they already are!
You think so? There were monitors like that 10-15 years ago for half price. In fact I bought one and sent overseas for family member with terminal ilness. Nothing new. Yes they will be sold because of hype - not because of some special features that are new on the market. Thise hear rate monitors were not cool at the time - Apple watch is cool and in fashion. That is it. Nothing more.
Yes, there have been devices that have reported heart rate. They haven't previously been paired with sophisticated software enabling the detection and immediate notification the kinds of things in the story. That is the differentiator.
The thrust of this article is so exaggerated that I'd go so far as to label it "fake news." It's true that the Watch is capable of alerting people to cardiac arrhythmias, but to say that it "saved the life" of the teenage girl or the first poster who had previously undiagnosed atrial fibrillation is simply preposterous. It's virtually certain that the girl's illness would soon have become clinically obvious and unlikely (but not impossible) that the gentleman with a. fib. would have actually died without the Apple Watch.
I hope that my comments won't be taken to mean that the Watch's heart-monitoring function is flawed or not worthwhile. I don't mean to imply that at all. It's very worthwhile; I wish everyone had one on his or her wrist. It's just that we've been so sensitized to the evils of "fake news," that it feels irresponsible not to call it out when one sees it. Gross exaggeration simply opens up Apple (or whoever is peddling it) to charges of intentionally misleading the public, even when that's not the case. It's unwise and unfair inasmuch as it can create unrealistic expectations.
R.M, MD
While everything you've said is technically accurate, it is better to detect things earlier than later. Don't ignore the value of earlier detection in terms of outcome and cost.
The thrust of this article is so exaggerated that I'd go so far as to label it "fake news." It's true that the Watch is capable of alerting people to cardiac arrhythmias, but to say that it "saved the life" of the teenage girl or the first poster who had previously undiagnosed atrial fibrillation is simply preposterous. It's virtually certain that the girl's illness would soon have become clinically obvious and unlikely (but not impossible) that the gentleman with a. fib. would have actually died without the Apple Watch.
I hope that my comments won't be taken to mean that the Watch's heart-monitoring function is flawed or not worthwhile. I don't mean to imply that at all. It's very worthwhile; I wish everyone had one on his or her wrist. It's just that we've been so sensitized to the evils of "fake news," that it feels irresponsible not to call it out when one sees it. Gross exaggeration simply opens up Apple (or whoever is peddling it) to charges of intentionally misleading the public, even when that's not the case. It's unwise and unfair inasmuch as it can create unrealistic expectations.
R.M, MD
You're absolutely right! And Prince didn't die of an accidental overdose of fentanyl, but because his heart stopped. :eyeroll:
* I bought an Apple Watch. It is reliable, it’s HR monitor is accurate enough to be very close to my experience with ER HR devices. I still use my AW to monitor my HR. - Are there now other wearables as good/reliable/with the same level of customer support as the AW for 1/2 the price? Maybe. Good luck finding them.
Yes, such exist, and have for several years. The Mio Link that I wore before being given my AW3 was highly accurate (based on my tests with a chest strap), and cost me about $50. It appears to be more than that now, but still can be had for less than $100.
However, it only measures heart rate. It doesn't do anything with it except report it. It doesn't do any analysis or anything else described by the people who make the "saved my life" claim.
I had seven alerts from my Apple Watch and I was diagnosed with episodes of extreme tachycardia. So it does help, my cardiologist said the history graphs I could show them of my daily heart beat gave them a very clear picture of what my heart is doing and when. I then had to wear a portable ecg machine for 48 hours. This confirmed what they had seen from the watch data. I have used a Polar and Microsoft watch before, and even though they showed my heartrate, they never allerted me of any posable problems.
Comments
Yes, there have been devices that have reported heart rate. They haven't previously been paired with sophisticated software enabling the detection and immediate notification the kinds of things in the story. That is the differentiator.
While everything you've said is technically accurate, it is better to detect things earlier than later. Don't ignore the value of earlier detection in terms of outcome and cost.
Yes, such exist, and have for several years. The Mio Link that I wore before being given my AW3 was highly accurate (based on my tests with a chest strap), and cost me about $50. It appears to be more than that now, but still can be had for less than $100.
However, it only measures heart rate. It doesn't do anything with it except report it. It doesn't do any analysis or anything else described by the people who make the "saved my life" claim.