Guzik P, Piekos C, Pierog O, Fenech N, Krauze T, Piskorski J, Wykretowicz A. Classic electrocardiogram-based and mobile technology derived approaches to heart rate variability are not equivalent.
Int J Cardiol 2018;
258:154-156. [PMID:
29544922 DOI:
10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.01.056]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2017] [Revised: 01/10/2018] [Accepted: 01/15/2018] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
We compared classic ECG-derived versus a mobile approach to heart rate variability (HRV) measurement.
METHODS & RESULTS
29 young adult healthy volunteers underwent a simultaneous recording of heart rate using an ECG and a chest heart rate monitor at supine rest, during mental stress and active standing. Mean RR interval, Standard Deviation of Normal-to-Normal (SDNN) of RR intervals, and Root Mean Square of the Successive Differences (RMSSD) between RR intervals were computed in 168 pairs of 5-minute epochs by in-house software on a PC (only sinus beats) and by mobile application "ELITEHRV" on a smartphone (no beat type identification). ECG analysis showed that 33.9% of the recordings contained at least one non-sinus beat or artefact, the mobile app did not report this. The mean RR intervals were significantly longer (p = 0.0378), while SDNN (p = 0.0001) and RMSSD (p = 0.0199) were smaller for the mobile approach.
CONCLUSIONS
Measures of identical HRV parameters by ECG-based and mobile approaches are not equivalent.
Collapse