Key result
Smartphone photoplethysmography was comparable to electrocardiography for measuring heart rate variability at rest but showed larger error after resistance exercise (effect size 1.14, p<0.05).
Why the study?
The study aimed to examine the validity of HRV measurements from smartphone-based PPG pre- and post-resistance exercise and to evaluate its intraday and interday reliability.
Does smartphone PPG accurately measure HRV compared to ECG pre- and post-resistance exercise in adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=31)
Does smartphone PPG accurately measure HRV compared to ECG pre- and post-resistance exercise in adults?
Smartphone PPG is comparable to ECG for measuring HRV at rest but exhibits larger error after resistance exercise.
Caution against smartphone PPG for post-exercise HRV; leaves open its resting utility pending validation studies.
The aim was to examine the validity of heart rate variability (HRV) measurements from photoplethysmography (PPG) via a smartphone application pre- and post-resistance exercise (RE) and to examine the intraday and interday reliability of the smartphone PPG method. Thirty-one adults underwent two simultaneous ultrashort-term electrocardiograph (ECG) and PPG measurements followed by 1-repetition maximum testing for back squats, bench presses, and bent-over rows. The participants then performed RE, where simultaneous ultrashort-term ECG and PPG measurements were taken: two pre- and one post-exercise. The natural logarithm of the root mean square of successive normal-to-normal (R-R) differences (LnRMSSD) values were compared with paired-sample t-tests, Pearson product correlations, Cohen’s d effect sizes (ESs), and Bland–Altman analysis. Intra-class correlations (ICC) were determined between PPG LnRMSSDs. Significant, small–moderate differences were found for all measurements between ECG and PPG: BasePre1 (ES = 0.42), BasePre2 (0.30), REPre1 (0.26), REPre2 (0.36), and REPost (1.14). The correlations ranged from moderate to very large: BasePre1 (r = 0.59), BasePre2 (r = 0.63), REPre1 (r = 0.63), REPre2 (r = 0.76), and REPost (r = 0.41)—all p < 0.05. The agreement for all the measurements was “moderate” (0.10–0.16). The PPG LnRMSSD exhibited “nearly-perfect” intraday reliability (ICC = 0.91) and “very large” interday reliability (0.88). The smartphone PPG was comparable to the ECG for measuring HRV at rest, but with larger error after resistance exercise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holmes et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy adults undergoing resistance exercise (n=31). Smartphone photoplethysmography (PPG) vs. Electrocardiograph (ECG) was evaluated on Heart rate variability (LnRMSSD) pre- and post-resistance exercise (ES 1.14, p=< 0.05). Smartphone photoplethysmography was comparable to electrocardiography for measuring heart rate variability at rest but showed larger error after resistance exercise (effect size 1.14, p<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: