Key result
The remote telemonitoring system demonstrated small but statistically significant measurement biases for heart rate (-0.30 to 1.10 beats/min) and respiratory rate (-1.25 to 0.39 breaths/min) compared to reference measures.
Why the study?
Does a remote telemonitoring system accurately measure heart rate and respiratory rate compared to reference measures in individuals in sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation?
Population
18 participants, comprising 10 healthy recreationally active individuals in sinus rhythm and 8 individuals…
Comparison
Remote telemonitoring system comprising a… vs Reference measures including 12-lead ECG and…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Remote telemonitoring may aid exCR adherence and AF rate control in CHD; leaves open efficacy, safety, and scalability pending randomized trials.
Cross-Sectional (n=18)
No
Does a remote telemonitoring system accurately measure heart rate and respiratory rate compared to reference measures in individuals in sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation?
p-value: p=≤0.003
The remote monitoring system demonstrated sufficient validity for monitoring heart and respiratory rates across various exercise intensities, showing potential to augment home-based cardiac rehabilitation.
Rawstorn et al. (2015) conducted a cross-sectional in Sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation (n=18). Remote telemonitoring system (BioHarness) vs. 12-lead ECG and indirect calorimeter was evaluated on Measurement bias of heart rate and respiratory rate compared to reference measures (p=≤0.003). The remote telemonitoring system demonstrated small but statistically significant measurement biases for heart rate (-0.30 to 1.10 beats/min) and respiratory rate (-1.25 to 0.39 breaths/min) compared to reference measures.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: