Key result
Wrist-worn heart rate monitors demonstrated substantial relative reliability compared to chest monitors in stroke patients (ICC 0.75 to 0.79), though absolute accuracy was limited by wide limits of agreement.
Why the study?
Wrist-worn heart rate monitors could improve rehabilitation quality by monitoring exercise intensity during physical therapy, but their accuracy in stroke patients required evaluation.
Does a wrist-worn heart rate monitor accurately measure heart rate compared to a chest monitor in inpatients with stroke during physical therapy?
Cross-Sectional (n=30)
No
Does a wrist-worn heart rate monitor accurately measure heart rate compared to a chest monitor in inpatients with stroke during physical therapy?
Wrist-worn heart rate monitors show substantial relative reliability but wide limits of agreement compared to chest monitors in stroke patients during physical therapy, indicating they are not particularly accurate for absolute values.
Wrist HR monitors may lack accuracy in stroke; leaves open their role for guiding rehab intensity.
[Purpose] We aimed to examine the accuracy of heart rate monitors worn on the wrist by patients with stroke. The wrist worn heart rate monitor could improve the quality of rehabilitation by monitoring exercise intensity during physical therapy. [Participants and Methods] Thirty inpatients with subacute hemiparetic stroke wore heart rate monitors on both (non-paretic and paretic) wrists, as well as a chest heart rate monitor. We recorded the heart rate values measured at the wrist and chest every minute during physical therapy sessions. The wrist monitors were an optical heart rate measurement device based on photoplethysmography, and the chest monitor was a traditional chest device based on electrocardiography. The relative and absolute reliabilities between the heart rate measurements from the wrist and chest monitors were calculated. [Results] The intraclass correlation coefficients for model 2.1 ranged from 0.75 to 0.79. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a very slight fixed bias; however, no significant proportional bias was observed. For the non-paretic and paretic sides, the lower and upper limits of agreement ranged from -21.8 to 23.8 beats/min and from -20.8 to 21.6 beats/min, and the mean absolute percentage errors were 6.7% and 5.9%, respectively. The Cohen's d value was small. [Conclusion] The relative reliability of the wrist heart rate monitors was substantial. The absolute reliability as bias in wrist heart rate and chest heart rate was small, but heart rates estimated from wrist monitors were not particularly accurate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kobayashi et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Subacute hemiparetic stroke (n=30). Wrist-worn heart rate monitor vs. Chest heart rate monitor was evaluated on Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between non-paretic wrist and chest heart rate monitors (ICC 0.75, 95% CI 0.74-0.76, p=<0.05). Wrist-worn heart rate monitors demonstrated substantial relative reliability compared to chest monitors in stroke patients (ICC 0.75 to 0.79), though absolute accuracy was limited by wide limits of agreement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: