He told me it was a lot less expensive than the Zio patch or Holter monitor and good enough to use to see if my SVT gets worse. When I had to wear those devices for 3 weeks (first the Holter monitor, then they switched to the Zio patch because it was more discreet) it was like, $1,500 I had to pay. The watch was only $300 and I can show him at my appointments. The watch could not diagnose me, and I have no idea what I’m looking for, but it seems to be worth it.

My ER doctor friend likes them: she’d rather have a false positive than someone missing out on treatment but more often than not, it’s been something actionable.

> Supposedly because it has a lot of false positives sending people to the doctor that don't have any issues.

Worse than that, it shows an actual issue of sorts, but puts the doctor in a position for whether treatment should be done or not, because the patient may be better off with no treatment, because they are young and otherwise healthy.

The patient ends up demanding treatment (surgery) and ends up with a worse quality of life than before, or in very unfortunate cases, end up dying from complications.

What the watch is really doing, is gather a lot of data from mostly healthy, younger people, that don't suffer heart issues that require treatment, i.e. people that such data is normally not gathered data from, because they never needed to.

I don't think we can see the true benefit of the watch until 25 years from now, when we can start mapping out how the heart and cardiovascular system deteriorates as you age and what causes increased deterioration.