Back

Smart stethoscope for cardiac auscultation in general practice: a prospective feasibility study of AI-assisted detection of atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and valvular heart disease

Harskamp, R. E.

2026-02-23 primary care research
10.64898/2026.02.21.26346766 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesArtificial intelligence (AI)-enabled digital stethoscopes combine phonocardiography and electrocardiography to support detection of cardiac rhythm and structural abnormalities. This study evaluated the feasibility and exploratory diagnostic performance of AI-guided cardiac auscultation during routine general practice consultations and home visits. MethodsIn this prospective feasibility study, 50 consecutive patients aged [≥]65 years underwent AI-assisted auscultation using the Eko CORE 500 during routine care. Recordings were attempted at four standard cardiac positions. Feasibility outcomes included technical failure, workflow disruption, and proportion of analyzable recordings (defined as successful AI output based on combined ECG and phonocardiography signals). Exploratory diagnostic performance was assessed against previously established diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (AF), heart failure (HF), or valvular heart disease (VHD) documented in the electronic medical record. ResultsAI-guided cardiac auscultation was completed in all patients without device malfunction or meaningful workflow disruption (median acquisition time 1-2 minutes). At least one analyzable recording was obtained in 47/50 patients (94%), and complete four-position analyses in 42/50 (84%). Signal limitations were mainly attributable to obesity, chest hair, or excess breast tissue. Among 47 analyzable patients, 11 had known AF, HF, or VHD. Sensitivity for detecting these conditions was 81.8% and specificity 91.7%. One new case of clinically relevant mitral regurgitation was identified. ConclusionsAI-enabled digital auscultation was feasible in routine general practice, with high rates of analyzable recordings and minimal workflow impact. Larger studies with contemporaneous reference standards are warranted to determine clinical utility.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
7.3%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.5%
3
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.5%
5
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.4%
6
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.4%
7
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
8
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
9
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
10
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.9%
11
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.8%
12
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
13
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
14
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.7%
16
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
17
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 45%
1.5%
18
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
19
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
20
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
21
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
22
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
23
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
24
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
25
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
26
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
27
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
28
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
29
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
30
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%