Are wearable heart rate monitors accurate compared to standard ECG in patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation?
Wearable optically based HR monitors are less accurate than electrode-containing chest monitors in cardiac rehabilitation patients, suggesting chest monitors should be preferred when accurate HR measurement is imperative.
BACKGROUND: To assess the accuracy of four wearable heart rate (HR) monitors in patients with established cardiovascular disease enrolled in phase II or III cardiac rehabilitation (CR). METHODS: Eighty adult patients enrolled in phase II or III CR were monitored during a CR session that included exercise on a treadmill and/or stationary cycle. Participants underwent HR monitoring with standard ECG limb leads, an electrocardiographic (ECG) chest strap monitor (Polar H7), and two randomly assigned wrist-worn HR monitors (Apple Watch, Fitbit Blaze, Garmin Forerunner 235, TomTom Spark Cardio), one on each wrist. HR was recorded at rest and at 3, 5, and 7 minutes of steady-state exercise on the treadmill and stationary cycle. RESULTS: =0.85) were most accurate. CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac patients, the accuracy of wearable, optically based HR monitors varies, and none of those tested was as accurate as an electrode-containing chest monitor. This observation has implications for in-home CR, as electrode-containing chest monitors should be used when accurate HR measurement is imperative.
Etiwy et al. (Sat,) studied this question.