Should more people wear smart heart monitoring technology for routine cardiac health monitoring?

The benefit/cost is very high, so indeed it would be benefitial.

Ultimately a patient should be seeking care from a licensed cardiologist to ensure a proper workup is being performed. If the technology in question is prescribed or recommended by a licensed professional for monitoring of a known condition, I would say yes. If a patient is wearing a smart device as a surrogate for seeking healthcare on a regular basis, I would have to say the answer should be no.

Technology is not sufficiently developed.

the benefits are still limited and depend on factors external to the watch, however, its use causes a lot of anxiety in patients.

It is a good screening tool

this answer is self-explaining because of the very positive benefit-risk

Will help in detection of latent arrhythmias

People at high risk of developing heart rhythm problems

this would apply to a certain subgroup of the population and needs effective management

especially those with chronic disease and co-morbidities

No available data on the meaningfulness of the wearable technologies

No because some of them are not trust and some one do not know about the same.

True for ECG based devices able to detect arryhymias.

Yes

But the technology should be very scientifically validated, as not to stress individuals because of measurement errors.

people with high risk of cardiovascular
diseases

If the technology was able to monitor cardiac rhythm, then yes, but it should be a choice.

Yes; but issues of privacy, electronic health records' confidentiality and consent should be addressed first.

Mainly people with known cardiac issues.

Those who are enslaved by Cell phones are good at charging them. I am a heart patient and not enthusiastic. Regular ECG's are more use. Plus a finger monitor for BP and Oxygen level which is MUCH cheaper than a watch. Easy to keep in a pocket and has a battery that lasts for weeks.

Monitoring cardiac health vitals will be a preventive measure.

We have the technology that everyone can be wearing these devices and the more using them the more people who will be saved

The population of more at risk individuals would benefit.

No need for people without cardiac conditions to wear these kind of expensive watches

Affordable smart heart monitoring should be a priority for heart health monitoring and saving lifes

I believe this is beneficial mainly for monitoring one’s cardio fitness and as a stimulant to exercise and keep one’s fitness up but also to establish a baseline to help evaluate trends as well as a means to alert if an emergency is encountered

Could be an option for risk groups

Particularly those at risk, if identified as being at risk.

More monitoring will always help, even if there are false positive scares.

Increased environmental hazards (e.g., chemical, biological pollutants, EMF, 5G, electronic devices, cellphones) including smart heart monitors, could lead to over-stimulation of immune system.

This should be worn only by people with known cardiac risks.

To date there is no clear evidence that the use of specific wearable devices is associated with better outcomes or symptoms neither in the general population nor in selected groups of patients.

it can have an impact in decrease this health condition

Manifestation of IM can be confusing for the patient. Immediate registration of ECG would make these patients act without delay.

In general it is too difficult to interpret the data/results. So far, reliable algorithms to predict health outcomes from the data do not exist.

See my reply above.

Scientific evidence from studies.

While wearing in case of heart problems is having use but daily use by all is not cost effective

I think just when needed.

patient selection is critical, it's not a question properly thought of by numbers alone

Every person who has some understanding of how heart is monitored avoid using routine wearable technology, like smart watch, is not to rely when comes to health and especially heart attack or any other issues with hearts that need immediate attention

While I am a believer of the potentials of biosensor technology, I am not sure there is enough evidence that would support this.

no evidence but probably yes

Maybe yes, maybe no

Yes, and also for normal people without threats

Just monitoring

In selected cases, smart watches may be useful to detect (paroxysmal) atrial fibrillation and may outweigh the accuracy of older tools (serial ECG, 24h, 72h or 1-week Holter monitoring). I do use them in my clinical practice, although in very few selected cases, depending on both the characterits of the patient, the likelihood of undiagnosed paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and the practical consequences of diagnosing this arrhythmia.

Saves time and money.

Yes, especially select cohorts of patients

Probably not the most cost-effective method of screening the population.