Key result
Placing wrist PPG monitors three fingers vs. one finger above the wrist cuts error ~11%.
Why the study?
Sensor placement, activity type, and individual characteristics impact the accuracy of wrist-worn photoplethysmography monitors, but technical interventions to optimize accuracy in patients with cardiac disease had not been investigated.
Does optimization of sensor placement and technical adaptations improve the accuracy of wrist-worn photoplethysmography heart rate monitors in patients with cardiac disease?
Cross-Sectional (n=50)
No
Does optimization of sensor placement and technical adaptations improve the accuracy of wrist-worn photoplethysmography heart rate monitors in patients with cardiac disease?
Wrist-worn photoplethysmography requires optimal placement and pre-use baseline compatibility assessment, as the monitors failed to provide acceptable accuracy in one-third of cardiac rehabilitation patients despite technical modifications.
Optimized wrist placement may improve PPG accuracy in cardiac patients; leaves open clinical utility pending prospective validation.
Introduction Sensor placement, activity type influencing wrist movements, and individual characteristics impact accuracy of wrist-worn photoplethysmography (PPG)-based heart rate (HR) monitors. This study investigated technical interventions to optimize PPG accuracy in patients with cardiac disease. Methods and results The Fitbit Inspire 2 PPG monitor was evaluated across three cohorts, using a Polar H10 chest strap as reference: (ⅰ) 10 healthy volunteers performed wrist movements with the monitor placed one or three fingers above the wrist to identify optimal placement; (ⅱ) 10 volunteers engaged in sport activities (walking, running, cycling, rowing); (ⅲ) 30 cardiac rehabilitation patients were monitored during exercise to assess baseline accuracy. Patients with low accuracy [mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) < 10% for <70% of training time] underwent technical interventions (sensor cleaning, forearm shaving, position fixation, and/or relocation to the volar wrist). Placement three vs. one fingers above the wrist was significantly more accurate (mean difference in MAPE: −11.4%, P < 0.001). Walking showed the highest accuracy (MAPE = 3.8%), followed by cycling (MAPE = 6.9%) and running (MAPE = 8.5%), while rowing had the lowest accuracy (MAPE = 13.4%, P < 0.001). Among CR patients, 66.7% achieved high baseline accuracy. Technical interventions improved accuracy in 50.0% of those with low baseline accuracy, but no significant predictors of optimization success were identified. Conclusion Accurate PPG-based monitoring requires a sensor placed higher on the wrist. Nevertheless, only two-thirds of patients are suitable for such monitoring, with improvement by technical adaptations possible (but impractical) in the others. Therefore, assessing baseline accuracy is a prerequisite before relying on these devices for activity guidance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vermunicht et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy volunteers and patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation (n=50). Wrist-worn PPG-based heart rate monitoring (Fitbit Inspire 2) vs. ECG-based chest strap (Polar H10) was evaluated on Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of PPG heart rate monitoring for 3-finger vs. 1-finger placement (Mean difference in MAPE: −11.4%, 95% CI -12.0 to -10.7, p=<0.001). Placement of a wrist-worn PPG monitor three fingers above the wrist significantly improved accuracy compared to one finger, with a mean difference in mean absolute percentage error of -11.4%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: