睡眠期间使用静息心率进行简化的、无需校准的运动强度测量的有效性：一项与呼吸气体分析的方法比较研究
Validity of simplified, calibration-less exercise intensity measurement using resting heart rate during sleep: a method-comparison study with respiratory gas analysis.
作者信息
Matsuura Hirotaka, Mukaino Masahiko, Otaka Yohei, Kagaya Hitoshi, Aoshima Yasushi, Suzuki Takuya, Inukai Ayaka, Hattori Emi, Ogasawara Takayuki, Saitoh Eiichi
机构信息
1Department of Rehabilitation Medicine I, School of Medicine, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan.
2Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Fujita Health University Hospital, Toyoake, Japan.
出版信息
BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2019 Nov 4;11:27. doi: 10.1186/s13102-019-0140-x. eCollection 2019.
BACKGROUND
The recent development of wearable devices has enabled easy and continuous measurement of heart rate (HR). Exercise intensity can be calculated from HR with indices such as percent HR reserve (%HRR); however, this requires an accurate measurement of resting HR, which can be time-consuming. The use of HR during sleep may be a substitute that considers the calibration-less measurement of %HRR. This study examined the validity of %HRR on resting HR during sleep in comparison to percent oxygen consumption reserve (%VOR) as a gold standard. Additionally, a 24/7%HRR measurement using this method is demonstrated.
METHODS
Twelve healthy adults aged 29 ± 5 years underwent treadmill testing using the Bruce protocol and a 6-min walk test (6MWT). The %VOR during each test was calculated according to a standard protocol. The %HRR during each exercise test was calculated either from resting HR in a sitting position (%HRR), when lying awake (%HRR), or during sleep (%HRR). Differences between %VOR and %HRR values were examined using Bland-Altman plots. A 180-day, 24/7%HRR measurement with three healthy adults was also conducted. The %HRR values during working days and holidays were compared.
RESULTS
In the treadmill testing, the mean difference between %VOR and %HRR was 1.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], - 0.2 to 3.6%). The %HRR and %HRR values were 10.8% (95% CI, 8.8 to 12.7%) and 7.7% (95% CI, 5.4 to 9.9%), respectively. In the 6MWT, mean differences between %VOR and %HRR, %HRR and %HRR were 12.7% (95% CI, 10.0 to 15.5%), 7.0% (95% CI, 4.0 to 10.0%) and - 2.9% (95% CI, - 5.0% to - 0.7%), respectively. The 180-day, 24/7%HRR measurement presented significant differences in %HRR patterns between working days and holidays in all three participants.
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest %HRR is valid in comparison to %VOR. The results may encourage a calibration-less, 24/7 measurement model of exercise intensity using wearable devices.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
UMIN000034967.Registered 21 November 2018 (retrospectively registered).
背景
可穿戴设备的最新发展使得心率（HR）的轻松连续测量成为可能。运动强度可以通过诸如心率储备百分比（%HRR）等指标从心率计算得出；然而，这需要准确测量静息心率，而这可能很耗时。睡眠期间心率的使用可能是一种无需校准测量%HRR的替代方法。本研究将睡眠期间静息心率的%HRR与作为金标准的摄氧量储备百分比（%VOR）进行比较，检验了其有效性。此外，还展示了使用这种方法进行的24/7%HRR测量。
方法
12名年龄为29±5岁的健康成年人采用布鲁斯方案进行跑步机测试和6分钟步行测试（6MWT）。根据标准方案计算每次测试期间的%VOR。每次运动测试期间的%HRR根据坐姿静息心率（%HRR）、清醒躺卧时（%HRR）或睡眠期间（%HRR）计算得出。使用布兰德-奥特曼图检查%VOR和%HRR值之间的差异。还对三名健康成年人进行了为期180天的24/7%HRR测量。比较工作日和节假日期间的%HRR值。
结果
在跑步机测试中，%VOR和%HRR之间的平均差异为1.7%（95%置信区间[CI]，-0.2至3.6%）。%HRR和%HRR值分别为10.8%（95%CI，8.8至12.7%）和7.7%（95%CI，5.4至9.9%）。在6MWT中，%VOR与%HRR、%HRR与%HRR之间的平均差异分别为12.7%（95%CI，10.0至15.5%）、7.0%（95%CI，4.0至10.0%）和-2.9%（95%CI，-5.0%至-0.7%）。在所有三名参与者中，为期180天的24/7%HRR测量显示工作日和节假日期间的%HRR模式存在显著差异。
结论
结果表明，与%VOR相比，%HRR是有效的。这些结果可能会鼓励使用可穿戴设备建立一种无需校准的24/7运动强度测量模型。
试验注册
UMIN000034967。2018年11月21日注册（追溯注册）。
Zotero 插件