Why the study?
Does smartphone photoplethysmography and heart-rate chest strap provide valid measurements of heart-rate variability compared to electrocardiography in healthy subjects?
Does smartphone photoplethysmography and heart-rate chest strap provide valid measurements of heart-rate variability compared to electrocardiography in healthy subjects?
Smartphone PPG and heart-rate chest straps provide valid and highly correlated measurements of heart-rate variability compared to standard ECG.
Supports validity of PPG/chest-strap HRV in healthy subjects; leaves open clinical validation and adoption.
PURPOSE: To establish the validity of smartphone photoplethysmography (PPG) and heart-rate sensor in the measurement of heart-rate variability (HRV). METHODS: 29 healthy subjects were measured at rest during 5 min of guided breathing and normal breathing using smartphone PPG, a heart-rate chest strap, and electrocardiography (ECG). The root mean sum of the squared differences between R-R intervals (rMSSD) was determined from each device. RESULTS: Compared to ECG, the technical error of estimate (TEE) was acceptable for all conditions (average TEE CV% [90% CI] = 6.35 [5.13; 8.5]). When assessed as a standardized difference, all differences were deemed "trivial" (average standard difference [90% CI] = 0.10 [0.08; 0.13]). Both PPG- and heart-rate-sensor-derived measures had almost perfect correlations with ECG (R = 1.00 [0.99; 1.00]). CONCLUSION: Both PPG and heart-rate sensors provide an acceptable agreement for the measurement of rMSSD when compared with ECG. Smartphone PPG technology may be a preferred method of HRV data collection for athletes due to its practicality and ease of use in the field.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Plews et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: