Modeling of Non-Invasive Methods of Remote Health Screening in Cardiovascular Diseases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2077-6594/2026.2/11Keywords:
telemedicine, remote screening, primary health care, wearable devices, atrial fibrillation, arterial hypertension, heart failureAbstract
Purpose: to develop a model of non-invasive methods for remote health screening in patients with cardiovascular diseases based on international experience. Research objectives: to analyze international experience in the application of non-invasive methods for remote screening in cardiovascular diseases; to substantiate the feasibility of their use in the relevant patient population; to define criteria for selecting devices and software; to formalize patient pathways within the remote screening system; and to propose practical models for its implementation. Materials and methods. The study was designed as a structured analytical review combined with conceptual and scenario-based modeling. The source base included international clinical trials, systematic reviews, professional society guidelines, and regulatory documents dealing with three priority domains: detection of atrial fibrillation with wearable photoplethysmography and ECG-based solutions followed by mandatory electrocardiographic confirmation; remote blood pressure assessment, including cuffless technologies; and non-invasive remote observation in chronic heart failure aimed at the early detection of clinical deterioration. The analytical framework combined thematic synthesis, comparative review, and process modeling. For each technological scenario, the following dimensions were assessed: target condition, class of device, physiological signal, confirmation protocol, suitability for primary health care, risk of false-positive and false-negative results, data quality requirements, interoperability, auditability, and cybersecurity. Particular attention was paid to the distinction between a digital suspicion signal and a clinically confirmed result, as well as to the organizational role of primary health care in triage, referral, and follow-up. Results. The review demonstrated that effective remote screening programs in cardiovascular care are built around a standardized clinical chain: signal acquisition, data quality control, triage, confirmatory testing, and clinical decision-making. Regardless of the class of technology, this chain determines the balance between yield, safety, and organizational manageability. Three domains appeared to be the most mature. First, targeted atrial fibrillation screening in high-risk groups can be supported by wearable PPG solutions and personal ECG devices, but only when all diagnosis-relevant signals are verified by a standard ECG method. Second, remote screening for arterial hypertension remains most clinically reliable when based on validated home cuff devices, whereas cuffless technologies should currently be positioned mainly as pre-screening or trend-monitoring tools because of concerns related to calibration, drift, transportability of accuracy, and methodological heterogeneity. Third, in chronic heart failure, multiparametric remote monitoring using body weight, heart rate, activity, and symptom-related inputs may support earlier recognition of deterioration, but only if a predefined escalation protocol exists. Based on the synthesis, five domains of device selection criteria were identified: clinical fit-for-purpose, validity and reproducibility, resilience to artifacts and missingness, regulatory acceptability and safety, and scalability at the primary care level. For software and digital platforms, the critical requirements included interoperability with health information systems, data quality management, logging of clinically relevant events, cybersecurity, and algorithm version control. Three patient pathway schemes were formalized for atrial fibrillation, arterial hypertension, and chronic heart failure, and four practical implementation models were proposed for Ukraine. Among them, the most realistic pilot options were primary-care-oriented remote screening for hypertension and targeted remote screening for atrial fibrillation in risk groups. Conclusions. Non-invasive remote screening in cardiovascular diseases should be interpreted not as isolated use of consumer devices but as a complex clinical and organizational intervention. Primary health care is the key coordinating level because it enables patient selection, onboarding, signal triage, referral for confirmatory diagnostics, and subsequent risk-factor management. For the Ukrainian health system, priority should be given to implementation models characterized by a high prevalence of the target condition, a clear confirmation protocol, and a predictable resource burden.
References
World Health Organization. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2025 [cited 2026 Apr 1]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cardiovascular-diseases-%28cvds%29.
World Health Organization. WHO guideline: recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2019 [cited 2026 Apr 2]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550505.
World Health Organization. Monitoring and evaluating digital health interventions: a practical guide to conducting research and assessment [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2016 [cited 2026 Apr 3]. Available from: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/252183.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evidence standards framework for digital health technologies [Internet]. London: NICE; 2022 [cited 2026 Apr 4]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd7.
International Medical Device Regulators Forum. Software as a medical device (SaMD): clinical evaluation. IMDRF/SaMD WG/N41FINAL:2017 [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2026 Apr 5]. Available from: https://www.imdrf.org/sites/default/files/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-170921-samd-n41-clinical-evaluation_1.pdf.
Van Gelder IC, Rienstra M, Bunting KV, Casado-Arroyo R, Caso V, Crijns HJGM 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 J. 2024;45(36):3314–3414. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae176.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for atrial fibrillation: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2022;327(4):360–367. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.23732.
Steinhubl SR, Waalen J, Edwards AM, Mehta RR, Ebner GS, Carter C et al. Effect of a home-based wearable continuous ECG monitoring patch on detection of undiagnosed atrial fibrillation: the mSToPS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(2):146–155. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.8102.
Lubitz SA, Faranesh AZ, Atlas SJ, McManus DD, Singer DE, Pagoto S et al. Detection of atrial fibrillation in a large population using wearable devices: the Fitbit Heart Study. Circulation. 2022;146(19):1415–1427. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.060291
Zarak MS, Khan SA, Majeed H, Waheed S, Hussain S, Khan MS. Systematic review of validation studies for the use of wearable smartwatches in the screening of atrial fibrillation. Int J Arrhythmia. 2024;25:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42444-024-00118-5.
Cohen JB, Byfield RL, Hardy ST, Krakoff LR, Saseen JJ, Shimbo D et al. Cuffless devices for the measurement of blood pressure: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2026;83(3):876–886. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/HYP.0000000000000254
Stergiou GS, Avolio AP, Palatini P, Asmar R, Baena CP, Brunström M et al. European Society of Hypertension recommendations for the validation of cuffless blood pressure measuring devices. J Hypertens. 2023;41(12):2074–2087. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0000000000003483
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Cuffless non-invasive blood pressure measuring devices – clinical performance testing and evaluation. Draft guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff [Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; 2026 [cited 2026 Apr 6]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/cuffless-non-invasive-blood-pressure-measuring-devices-clinical-performance-testing-and-evaluation
Mukkamala R, Hahn JO, Yavarimanesh M, Natarajan K. Evaluation of the accuracy of cuffless blood pressure measurement devices: challenges and proposals. Hypertension. 2021;78(5):1161–1167. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.17747
Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure. Circulation. 2022;145(18):e895–e1032. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063
Stevenson LW, Ross HJ, Rathman LD, Boehmer JP. Remote monitoring for heart failure management at home. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;81(23):2272–2291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.04.010
Scholte NTB, van Ravensberg AE, Shakoor A, Illing S, Rienstra M. A scoping review on advancements in noninvasive wearable technology for heart failure management. npj Digit Med. 2024;7(1):279. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01268-5
Canali S, Schiaffonati V, Aliverti A. Challenges and recommendations for wearable devices in digital health: data quality, interoperability, health equity, fairness. PLOS Digit Health. 2022;1(10):e0000104. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000104
Bhatia A, Vaibhav V, Patel S, Rishi KV, Sharma A. Remote patient monitoring in heart failure. Int J Heart Fail. 2021;3(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.36628/ijhf.2020.0023
Ahmed FZ, Taylor JK, Green C, Emery T, Stehlik J, Mead A et al. Triage-HF Plus: a novel device-based remote monitoring pathway to identify worsening heart failure. ESC Heart Fail. 2020;7(1):107–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12529
Brandes A, Stavrakis S, Freedman B, Van Gelder IC, Boriani G. Consumer-led screening for atrial fibrillation: frontier review of the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration. Circulation. 2022;146(19):1461–1474. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.058911
Wong KC, Nguyen TN, Chow CK. Global implementation and evaluation of atrial fibrillation screening in the past two decades: a narrative review. npj Cardiovasc Health. 2024;1:17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44325-024-00014-w
Khurshid S, Healey JS, McIntyre WF, Lubitz SA, Benjamin EJ. Population-based screening for atrial fibrillation. Circ Res. 2020;127(1):143–154. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.316341
Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist C et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):373–498. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612
Freedman B, Camm J, Calkins H, Healey JS, Rosenqvist M, Wang J et al. Screening for atrial fibrillation: a report of the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration. Circulation. 2017;135(19):1851–1867. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.026693
Goldsack JC, Coravos A, Bakker JP, Bent B, Dowling AV, Fitzer-Attas C et al. Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs). npj Digit Med. 2020;3:55. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0260-4
Bayoumy K, Gaber M, Elshafeey A, Mhaimeed O, Dineen EH, Marvel FA et al. Smart wearable devices in cardiovascular care: where we are and how to move forward. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021;18(8):581–599. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-021-00522-7
Smuck M, Odonkor CA, Wilt JK, Schmidt N, Swiernik MA. The emerging clinical role of wearables: factors for successful implementation in healthcare. npj Digit Med. 2021;4:45. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00418-3
Byrom B, Watson C, Doll H, Coons SJ, Eremenco S, Ballinger R et al. Selection of and evidentiary considerations for wearable devices and their measurements for use in regulatory decision making: recommendations from the ePRO Consortium. Value Health. 2018;21(6):631–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.012
Finkelman EM, Adams JL, Jalowsky M, Markel H, Schaeffer L, Vest JR et al. Information technology interoperability and use for better care and evidence. In: Vital directions for health & health care: priorities from a National Academy of Medicine initiative [Internet]. Washington (DC): National Academy of Medicine; 2017 [cited 2026 Apr 1]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK595165/
Glaab E, Dugas M, Ganesan A, Wang T, Bekiaris G, Carr E, et al. Recommendations for successful development and implementation of digital health technology tools. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e56747. https://doi.org/10.2196/56747
Faust L, Wilson P, Asai S, Wang X, Chen IY, Saria S. Considerations for quality control monitoring of machine learning models in clinical practice. JMIR Med Inform. 2024;12:e50437. https://doi.org/10.2196/50437
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Cybersecurity in medical devices: quality system considerations and content of premarket submissions. Guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff [Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; 2025 [cited 2026 Apr 2]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/119933/download




