经典的基于心电图的和移动技术衍生的心率变异性方法并不等同。

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

机构信息

Department of Cardiology - Intensive Therapy, Poznan University of Medical Science, Poznan, Poland.

出版信息

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

DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.01.056

PMID:29544922

Abstract

UNLABELLED

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.

摘要

未加标签

我们比较了经典心电图衍生方法和移动方法测量心率变异性（HRV）的效果。

方法与结果

29 名年轻成年健康志愿者在仰卧休息、精神压力和主动站立期间同时使用心电图和胸部心率监测器记录心率。通过 PC 上的内部软件（仅窦性心搏）和智能手机上的移动应用程序“ELITEHRV”（无搏型识别），在 168 对 5 分钟时段的每对记录中计算平均 RR 间期、RR 间期的正常到正常标准差（SDNN）和 RR 间期的均方根差（RMSSD）。心电图分析显示，33.9%的记录中至少存在一个非窦性心搏或伪差，而移动应用程序未报告此情况。移动方法的平均 RR 间期显著更长（p=0.0378），而 SDNN（p=0.0001）和 RMSSD（p=0.0199）更小。