PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 10, 2025Frontiers in Physiology13 citationsOpen Access

Pulse rate variability is not the same as heart rate variability: findings from a large, diverse clinical population study

View Full Paper
AKAllen B. KantrowitzKBKfır Ben-DavidMMMichael Morris

Key Points

  • Significant disagreement was found between PPG-derived PRV and ECG-derived HRV across various chronic conditions.
  • For example, ECG-HRV metrics showed higher values than PPG-PRV, with notable differences in SDNN and rMSSD.
  • Assessment included Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analyses to evaluate deviations in the data.
  • Implications stress the need for clear differentiation of PRV and HRV in clinical research and product development.

Abstract

Introduction Scientists and consumer products are increasingly employing light-based photoplethysmography (PPG) instead of electrocardiography (ECG) assuming it accurately quantifies heart rate variability (HRV). Recent studies, however, have demonstrated that pulse rate variability (PRV) derived from PPG is not equivalent to HRV-derived from ECG. This study investigated the agreement between PPG-PRV and ECG-HRV in a beat-to-beat analysis in 931 adults recruited from a tertiary academic medical center in the southeastern United States. Methods Participants wore two (chest and bicep) Warfighter Monitor™ devices (Tiger Tech Solutions, Inc.). Heart rate (HR), pulse rate (PR) and three time-domain indices for PPG-PRV and ECG-HRV were measured. ECG-derived RR and noise-filtered NN intervals were extracted to compute HR, SDNN (standard deviation of NN intervals), rMSSD (root mean square of successive differences), and pNN50 (percentage of successive NN intervals differing by 50 ms). PPG-derived pulse-wave peaks were detected to calculate corresponding PR/PRV metrics. Pearson correlation, Bland–Altman, and one-way ANOVA analyses assessed linear association, bias, and mean differences across select chronic diseases. Results Significant disagreement and differences were observed between ECG-HRV and PPG-PRV (p 0.001 for all). For rMSSD: cardiovascular: 3.04 ms, 95% CI: 1.33, 4.75, endocrine : 2.85 ms, 95% CI: 0.52, 5.18, and neurological: 4.39 ms, 95% CI: 1.39, 7.39). For SDNN: cardiovascular: 8.50 ms, 95% CI: 5.25, 11.74, endocrine: 8.43 ms, 95% CI: 3.97, 12.90, neurological: 11.84 ms, 95% CI: 6.02, 17.67, and respiratory: 7.23 ms, 95% CI: 1.83, 12.62). For pNN50: cardiovascular: 2.48%, 95% CI: 1.67, 3.3, endocrine : 2.21% 95% CI: 1.12, 3.29, neurological: 2.91%, 95% CI: 1.25, 4.32, and respiratory: 1.46%, 95% CI: 0.15, 2.77). Discussion PPG-PRV is a poor surrogate for ECG- HRV as it significantly underestimated SDNN, rMSSD, and pNN50 across select chronic diseases. Given the widespread use of PPG-based devices and ubiquitous, incorrect assumption that PRV accurately reflects HRV, researchers, clinicians, and manufacturers must clearly distinguish between PRV and HRV in studies and product claims.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kantrowitz et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68c1a13a54b1d3bfb60dc990https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1630032
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper