Key result
The PolarS810i heart rate monitor demonstrated remarkably high concordance correlation (CCC 0.86 to 0.99) with a portable Holter ECG for short-term heart rate variability indices in patients with heart failure.
Why the study?
Does the PolarS810i heart rate monitor provide reproducible and accurate HRV measurements compared to a Holter monitor during a 6-minute walk test in patients with heart failure?
Observational (n=50)
Single-blind
Does the PolarS810i heart rate monitor provide reproducible and accurate HRV measurements compared to a Holter monitor during a 6-minute walk test in patients with heart failure?
Effect estimate: CCC 0.999 (95% CI 0.98-0.99)
p-value: p=<0.001
The PolarS810i heart rate monitor provides reproducible and highly agreeable short-term HRV measurements compared to a Holter monitor in heart failure patients during rest, exercise, and recovery.
HRV reproducibility at rest supports PolarS810i use in select HF assessments; leaves open broader adoption pending larger prospective validation.
Heart rate variability (HRV) analysis is a useful method to assess abnormal functioning in the autonomic nervous system and to predict cardiac events in patients with heart failure (HF). HRV measurements with heart rate monitors have been validated with an electrocardiograph in healthy subjects but not in patients with HF. We explored the reproducibility of HRV in two consecutive six-minute walk tests (6MW), 60-minute apart, using a heart rate monitor (PolarS810i) and a portable electrocardiograph (called Holter) in 50 HF patients (mean age 59 years, NYHA II, left ventricular ejection fraction ~35%). The reproducibility for each device was analysed using a paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Additionally, we assessed the agreement between the two devices based on the HRV indices at rest, during the 6MW and during recovery using concordance correlation coefficients (CCC), 95% confidence intervals and Bland-Altman plots. The test-retest for the HRV analyses was reproducible using Holter and PolarS810i at rest but not during recovery. In the second 6MW, patients showed significant increases in rMSSD and walking distance. The PolarS810i measurements had remarkably high concordance correlation [0.86<CCC<0.99] based on Holter at rest, during 6MW and recovery. At higher rates, a small effect in increasing differences between Holter and Polar in R-R intervals was observed. In conclusion, our study showed good reproducibility of HRV at rest in two consecutive 6MW using Holter and PolarS810i. Additionally, PolarS810i produced good agreements in short-term HRV indices based on Holter simultaneous recordings at rest, during the 6MW and recovery in HF patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Braga et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=50). PolarS810i heart rate monitor vs. Holter Cardiolight portable ECG was evaluated on Agreement of R-R intervals between PolarS810i and Holter at rest (CCC 0.999, 95% CI 0.98-0.99, p=<0.001). The PolarS810i heart rate monitor demonstrated remarkably high concordance correlation (CCC 0.86 to 0.99) with a portable Holter ECG for short-term heart rate variability indices in patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: