Classic electrocardiogram-based and mobile technology derived approaches to heart rate variability are not equivalent
Classic electrocardiogram-based and mobile technology derived approaches to heart rate variability are not equivalent
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.01.056
复制
发表时间：
2018-05-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Wykretowicz, Andrzej
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Guzik, Przemyslaw;Piekos, Caroline;Wykretowicz, Andrzej
我们比较了传统心电图法与移动心率变异性 (HRV) 测量方法。方法与结果：29 名年轻健康志愿者在仰卧休息、精神压力和主动站立时使用心电图和胸部心率监测器同时记录心率。通过 PC 上的内部软件（仅窦性搏动）和智能手机上的移动应用程序“ELITEHRV”（无搏动类型识别），在 168 对 5 分钟周期中计算平均 RR 间隔、RR 间隔的正常与正常标准差 (SDNN) 以及 RR 间隔之间的连续差异均方根 (RMSSD)。心电图分析显示，33.9% 的录音至少包含一次非窦性搏动或伪影，但移动应用程序没有报告这一点。对于移动方法，平均 RR 间隔明显较长 (p = 0.0378)，而 SDNN (p = 0.0001) 和 RMSSD (p = 0.0199) 较小。结论：基于心电图和移动方法对相同 HRV 参数的测量并不等效。 (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. 保留所有权利。
We compared classic ECG-derived versus a mobile approach to heart rate variability (HRV) measurement.Methods & results: 29 young adult healthy volunteers underwent a simultaneous recording of heart rate using an ECG and a chest heart rate monitor at supine rest, during mental stress and active standing. Mean RR interval, Standard Deviation of Normal-to-Normal (SDNN) of RR intervals, and Root Mean Square of the Successive Differences (RMSSD) between RR intervals were computed in 168 pairs of 5-minute epochs by in-house software on a PC (only sinus beats) and by mobile application "ELITEHRV" on a smartphone (no beat type identification). ECG analysis showed that 33.9% of the recordings contained at least one non-sinus beat or artefact, the mobile app did not report this. The mean RR intervals were significantly longer (p = 0.0378), while SDNN (p = 0.0001) and RMSSD (p = 0.0199) were smaller for the mobile approach.Conclusions: Measures of identical HRV parameters by ECG-based and mobile approaches are not equivalent. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.