The VitalPatch® sensor provided substantial to almost perfect agreement for heart rate but poor to moderate agreement for respiratory rate compared to a metabolic cart during physical tests.
Observational
Does the VitalPatch sensorized chest patch provide reliable heart rate and respiratory rate monitoring compared to a metabolic cart during physical tests in normoxic and hypoxic environments?
The VitalPatch provides reliable heart rate monitoring at rest and minimal movement in both normoxic and hypoxic environments, but respiratory rate monitoring and ECG alarms are less reliable during physical activity.
Abstract Skin‐mounted sensors are thin, flexible and lightweight electronic devices that enable monitoring of multiple physiological parameters. The aim of this study was to provide pilot evidence for possible utilization of a sensorized patch for capturing the bodily response to hypoxia. The subsequent phases of the study comprised a case report and a case series, with participants undergoing physical tests in both normobaric normoxia and hypoxia. The data obtained from VitalPatch® were compared with data from the metabolic cart COSMED Quark CPET. In the case report, agreement was substantial for heart rate (HR) and poor for respiratory rate (RR) in an incremental normoxic test, and almost perfect for HR and moderate for RR in a time‐to‐exhaustion hypoxic test; in the case series, agreement was substantial for HR and poor for RR. The trend of values generally was almost superimposable and mean bias was overall acceptable. ECG alarms were considered mostly false or highly uncertain, possibly due to noise and artifacts. The quality of the recording was unaffected by the presence of hypoxia. VitalPatch® is best used at rest and in minimal movement, offering reliable HR and RR monitoring.
Bondi et al. (Sat,) conducted a observational in Hypoxia response monitoring. VitalPatch® vs. COSMED Quark CPET metabolic cart was evaluated on Agreement for heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR). The VitalPatch® sensor provided substantial to almost perfect agreement for heart rate but poor to moderate agreement for respiratory rate compared to a metabolic cart during physical tests.