Key result
Compared to Holter monitoring, the Polar H10 chest strap accurately assessed heart rate over 24 hours (r=0.932, MAE 3.43 bpm), while the Fitbit Inspire 2 demonstrated weaker accuracy (r=0.678).
Why the study?
Heart rate tracking could assist in cardiac patient follow-up, but profound validation of consumer monitors worn for long periods versus gold-standard Holter monitoring in cardiac populations was lacking.
Do the Polar H10 chest strap and Fitbit Inspire 2 tracker accurately measure continuous heart rate compared to Holter monitoring in cardiac patients?
Population
15 patients (5 AF, 5 HF, and 5 CR) with a scheduled 24-hour Holter monitor
Comparison
Polar H10 chest strap and Fitbit Inspire 2 tracker vs Holter monitoring
Design
Pilot validation study
Follow-up
24-hour
Authors
Loading...
Polar H10 may support continuous HR monitoring in cardiac patients; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Observational (n=15)
Do the Polar H10 chest strap and Fitbit Inspire 2 tracker accurately measure continuous heart rate compared to Holter monitoring in cardiac patients?
Effect estimate: r=0.932 (Polar H10); r=0.678 (Fitbit Inspire 2)
The Polar H10 chest strap provides highly accurate continuous heart rate monitoring in cardiac patients over 24 hours compared to Holter, while the Fitbit Inspire 2 is less accurate.
Vermunicht et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and cardiac rehabilitation (n=15). Polar H10 chest strap and Fitbit Inspire 2 tracker vs. Holter monitoring was evaluated on Accuracy of heart rate measurement (Pearson correlation, MAE, MAPE) (r=0.932 (Polar H10); r=0.678 (Fitbit Inspire 2)). Compared to Holter monitoring, the Polar H10 chest strap accurately assessed heart rate over 24 hours (r=0.932, MAE 3.43 bpm), while the Fitbit Inspire 2 demonstrated weaker accuracy (r=0.678).