Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common type of arrhythmia, significantly impacts patients’ prognosis. While wearable devices are increasingly integrated into cardiovascular monitoring, their effect on clinical outcomes in AF remains unclear. This review demonstrates the impact of wearable technology on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and assesses its role in AF management and prognosis.
Methods
A systematic literature search was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases. Included studies investigated AF patients using wearable devices and reported clinical outcomes. Evidence quality was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Statistical analyses were performed using R 4.4.2 and Review Manager 5.4.
Results
Eleven articles were included in this meta-analysis, comprising 10 studies (seven randomized controlled trials and three observational studies). Compared with usual care, wearable devices uses significantly reduced risks of MACEs (risk ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–0.93), all-cause mortality (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29–0.85), ischemic stroke (RR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.07–0.26), bleeding events (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33–0.70), and hospitalization (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74–0.97). Subgroup analyses suggested that the composite endpoint definitions and follow-up duration primarily explained heterogeneity. Evidence certainty ranged from high to low across outcomes. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings for MACEs and hospitalization outcomes.
Conclusion
Wearable devices for cardiac monitoring significantly reduce the MACEs risk and improve prognosis in AF patients. This review supports the effectiveness of wearable technology in AF management.
ChengSHeJHanY, et al.Global burden of atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter and its attributable risk factors from 1990 to 2021. Europace2024; 26. DOI: 10.1093/europace/euae195.
2.
OdutayoAWongCXHsiaoAJ, et al.Atrial fibrillation and risks of cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and death: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br Med J2016; 354: i4482.
3.
ElliottADMiddeldorpMEVan GelderIC, et al.Epidemiology and modifiable risk factors for atrial fibrillation. Nat Rev Cardiol2023; 20: 404–417.
4.
KornejJBorschelCSBenjaminEJ, et al.Epidemiology of atrial fibrillation in the 21st century: novel methods and new insights. Circ Res2020; 127: 4–20.
5.
BabuMLautmanZLinX, et al.Wearable devices: implications for precision medicine and the future of health care. Annu Rev Med2024; 75: 401–415.
6.
LuLZhangJXieY, et al.Wearable health devices in health care: narrative systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth2020; 8: e18907.
7.
NazarianSLamKDarziA, et al.Diagnostic accuracy of smartwatches for the detection of cardiac arrhythmia: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res2021; 23: e28974.
8.
LeeSChuYRyuJ, et al.Artificial intelligence for detection of cardiovascular-related diseases from wearable devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Yonsei Med J2022; 63: S93–S107.
9.
KeshetAReicherLBarN, et al.Wearable and digital devices to monitor and treat metabolic diseases. Nat Metab2023; 5: 563–571.
10.
MohragMMojiriMEHakamiMS, et al.The impact of wearable technologies on blood pressure control in hypertensive patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus2024; 16: e71220.
11.
WellsCIXuWPenfoldJA, et al.Wearable devices to monitor recovery after abdominal surgery: scoping review. BJS Open2022; 6. DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac031.
12.
HughesAShandhiMMHMasterH, et al.Wearable devices in cardiovascular medicine. Circ Res2023; 132: 652–670.
13.
NatalucciVMarmondiFBiraghiM, et al.The effectiveness of wearable devices in non-communicable diseases to manage physical activity and nutrition: where we are?Nutrients2023; 15: 913.
14.
SpatzESGinsburgGSRumsfeldJS, et al.Wearable digital health technologies for monitoring in cardiovascular medicine. N Engl J Med2024; 390: 346–356.
15.
HoJSHoESYeoLL, et al.Use of wearable technology in cardiac monitoring after cryptogenic stroke or embolic stroke of undetermined source: a systematic review. Singapore Med J2024; 65: 370–379.
16.
BallavenutoJMATongtipNFischerNLS, et al.Wearable devices, ischemic heart disease and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas2025; 193: 108186.
17.
GongXYChengJWuYT, et al.Effectiveness of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation based on wearable ECG or heart rate monitoring devices in patients with heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Geriatr Nurs2024; 58: 238–246.
18.
HigginsJPThompsonSGDeeksJJ, et al.Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J2003; 327: 557–560.
19.
GoldenthalILSciaccaRRRigaT, et al.Recurrent atrial fibrillation/flutter detection after ablation or cardioversion using the AliveCor KardiaMobile device: IHEART results. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol2019; 30: 2220–2228.
20.
CaceresBAHickeyKTBakkenSB, et al.Mobile electrocardiogram monitoring and health-related quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation: findings from the iPhone helping evaluate atrial fibrillation rhythm through technology (iHEART) study. J Cardiovasc Nurs2020; 35: 327–336.
21.
GuoYGuoJShiX, et al.Mobile health technology-supported atrial fibrillation screening and integrated care: a report from the mAFA-II trial long-term extension cohort. Eur J Intern Med2020; 82: 105–111.
22.
TranATOkashaOMSteinhausDA, et al.Prospective evaluation of the effect of smartphone electrocardiogram usage on anticoagulant medication compliance. J Interv Card Electrophysiol2022; 65: 453–460.
23.
StewartSBallJHorowitzJD, et al.Standard versus atrial fibrillation-specific management strategy (SAFETY) to reduce recurrent admission and prolong survival: pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet2015; 385: 775–784.
24.
KatapadiAChelikamNGargJ, et al.Dynamic data-driven management of atrial fibrillation with implantable cardiac monitors: the MONITOR AF study. Heart Rhythm2025; 22: 3050–3056.
25.
KapaSEpsteinAECallansDJ, et al.Assessing arrhythmia burden after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using an implantable loop recorder: the ABACUS study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol2013; 24: 875–881.
26.
HickeyKSciaccaRRBivianoAB, et al.Evaluating the utility of mHealth ECG heart monitoring for the detection and management of atrial fibrillation and flutter in clinical practice. Heart Rhythm2017; 14: S49. Conference Abstract.
27.
LambertCTPatelDBumgarnerJM, et al.Atrial fibrillation future clinic. Novel platform to integrate smart device electrocardiogram into clinical practice. Cardiovasc Digit Health J2021; 2: 92–100.
28.
HuangSZhaoTLiuC, et al.Portable device improves the detection of atrial fibrillation after ablation. Int Heart J2021; 62: 786–791.
29.
MareddyCRomeroJVarleyAL, et al.MP-483498-009 continuous versus patch ECG monitoring following catheter ablation of AF in the real-AF registry. Heart Rhythm2024; 21: S116. Conference Abstract.
30.
KaiharaTIntan-GoeyVScherrenbergM, et al.Impact of activity trackers on secondary prevention in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol2022; 29: 1047–1056.
31.
MaximidouTMonsU. Benefits of wearable-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Prev Cardiol2025; 23: 101015.
32.
ParameswaranRAl-KaiseyAMKalmanJM. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: current indications and evolving technologies. Nat Rev Cardiol2021; 18: 210–225.
33.
BermanAEKabiriMWeiT, et al.Economic and health value of delaying atrial fibrillation progression using radiofrequency catheter ablation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol2023; 16: e011237.
34.
LiMGuoHLiE, et al.Impact of disease progression avoidance by catheter ablation on clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation: insights from the CABANA trial. Heart Rhythm2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.07.050.
35.
SvennbergEFreedmanBAndradeJG, et al.Recent-onset atrial fibrillation: challenges and opportunities. Eur Heart J2026; 47: 170–187.
36.
HermansANLGawalkoMDohmenL, et al.Mobile health solutions for atrial fibrillation detection and management: a systematic review. Clin Res Cardiol2022; 111: 479–491.
37.
LinzDGawalkoMBetzK, et al.Atrial fibrillation: epidemiology, screening and digital health. Lancet Reg Health Eur2024; 37: 100786.
38.
Van GelderICRienstraMBuntingKV, et al.2024 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J2024; 45: 3314–3414.
39.
PerezMVMahaffeyKWHedlinH, et al.Large-scale assessment of a smartwatch to identify atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med2019; 381: 1909–1917.
40.
GuoYWangHZhangH, et al.Mobile photoplethysmographic technology to detect atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol2019; 74: 2365–2375.
41.
JangJPLinHTChenYJ, et al.Role of remote monitoring in detection of atrial arrhythmia, stroke reduction, and use of anticoagulation therapy- a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ J2020; 84: 1922–1930.
