AgingResearch.NewsJoin free

Ai-ecg-guided monitoring

Ai-ecg-guided monitoring has been studied in 1 paper since 2026: 1 trial in people; 1 in the past year. The newest story, Nov 7, 2026: “AI-guided monitoring detected modestly more rhythm abnormalities”.

Intervention

1 paper studies it3 findingsUpdated

1 new paper in 30 daysSee all 1 papers on ai-ecg-guided monitoring

At a glance

The findings reach people, from one lab or study. 1 lab.

“The primary outcome occurred in 54 intervention participants (0.74%) versus 35 control participants (0.48%; odds ratio, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.01–2.37]; P =0.046).”
Leveraging AI-ECG Technology for Early Notification and Tracking of AF Development (LATENT): A Randomized Controlled TrialCirculation2026doi:10.1161/circulationaha.126.083540

None of its findings points the other way.

Humans: a single group. Cells, worms or flies and mice: nothing yet.

C, W, M, H: cells, worms or flies, mice, humans. Dark: independent labs found the same change there. Light: one lab or one study. Outline: nothing yet.

  • 1 lab
  • Human trial1

Studies in people

1 study gave ai-ecg-guided monitoring to people and measured what changed.

What changedDesignPeopleSource

up: Increases detection of new atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or pre-AF atrial findings0.74% versus 0.48%; OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.01–2.37

no change: Has no effect on atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter detection0.3% versus 0.2%

no change: Has no effect on antiarrhythmic therapy initiation2.3% versus 2.4%

Randomized trial90 days14,665 people40 to 85 yearsMidlife adults; Older adultsCirculation, Nov 7, 2026

What did studies of ai-ecg-guided monitoring find?

3

Studies of ai-ecg-guided monitoring measured 3 outcomes: antiarrhythmic therapy initiation, atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter detection and detection of new atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or pre-AF atrial findings.

Antiarrhythmic therapy initiation

no changein humans1

1 study

  1. Ai-ecg-guided monitoring showed no clear effect on antiarrhythmic therapy initiation in humans (Compared with usual care) (2.3% versus 2.4%).

    “AF/AFl detection (0.3% versus 0.2%) and antiarrhythmic therapy initiation at 180 days (2.3% versus 2.4%) did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups.”

    Human trialCompared with usual care180 daysn = 14,665

    AI-guided monitoring detected modestly more rhythm abnormalities

    Circulation

Atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter detection

no changein humans1

1 study

  1. Ai-ecg-guided monitoring showed no clear effect on atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter detection in humans (Compared with usual care) (0.3% versus 0.2%).

    “AF/AFl detection (0.3% versus 0.2%) and antiarrhythmic therapy initiation at 180 days (2.3% versus 2.4%) did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups.”

    Human trialCompared with usual caren = 14,665

    AI-guided monitoring detected modestly more rhythm abnormalities

    Circulation

Detection of new atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or pre-AF atrial findings

upin humans1OR 1.54

1 study

  1. Ai-ecg-guided monitoring increases detection of new atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or pre-AF atrial findings in humans (Without previous atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter; compared with usual care) (0.74% versus 0.48%; OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.01–2.37).

    “The primary outcome occurred in 54 intervention participants (0.74%) versus 35 control participants (0.48%; odds ratio, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.01–2.37]; P =0.046).”

    Human trialWithout previous atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter; compared with usual care90 daysn = 14,665

    AI-guided monitoring detected modestly more rhythm abnormalities

    Circulation

Latest

Dec 2025: 0Jan 2026: 0Feb 2026: 0Mar 2026: 0Apr 2026: 0May 2026: 0Jun 2026: 0Jul 2026: 0Aug 2026: 0Sep 2026: 0Oct 2026: 0Nov 2026: 11 paper in 12 months
Circulation

AI-guided monitoring detected modestly more rhythm abnormalities

Within 90 days, abnormal rhythms or specified related findings were detected in 0.74% of the AI-guided group versus 0.48% of controls.Within 90 days, abnormal rhythms or specified related findings were detected in 0.74% of the AI-guided group versus 0.48% of controls.

Randomized trial · 14,665 peopleInterventions
Paper

Related