Classic electrocardiogram-based and mobile technology derived approaches to heart rate variability are not equivalent

Int J Cardiol. 2018 May 1:258:154-156. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.01.056.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Electrocardiogram; Heart rate variability; Mobile technology.

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Cell Phone / instrumentation*
  • Cell Phone / standards*
  • Electrocardiography / instrumentation
  • Electrocardiography / methods*
  • Electrocardiography / standards*
  • Female
  • Heart Rate / physiology*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Young Adult