Why the study?
Does photoplethysmography accurately estimate heart rate compared to continuous electrocardiogram monitoring in hospitalised inpatients with and without arrhythmias?
Does photoplethysmography accurately estimate heart rate compared to continuous electrocardiogram monitoring in hospitalised inpatients with and without arrhythmias?
Photoplethysmography significantly underestimates heart rate in atrial fibrillation and sinus tachycardia, which may delay the early recognition of clinical deterioration in hospitalized patients.
PPG warrants ECG confirmation for AF monitoring in inpatients; leaves open arrhythmia-specific accuracy validation in prospective studies.
The accuracy of photoplethysmography (PPG) for heart rate (HR) estimation in cardiac arrhythmia is unknown. PPG-HR was evaluated in 112 hospitalised inpatients (cardiac arrhythmias (n = 60), sinus rhythm (n = 52)) using a continuous electrocardiogram monitoring as a reference standard. Strong agreement was observed in sinus rhythm HR < 100 and atrial flutter (bias 1 beat), modest agreement in sinus tachycardia (bias 24 beats) and complete heart block (bias -6 beats) and weak agreement with significant HR underestimation was seen in atrial fibrillation (bias 23 beats). Routine utilisation of PPG for HR estimation may delay early recognition of clinical deterioration in certain arrhythmias and sinus tachycardia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koshy et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: