Christian Soto-Catalan, Alain-S Comtois, David Martin, Suzanne Leclerc
{"title":"Validity of a Heart Rate Monitor for Heart Rate Variability Analysis During an Orthostatic Challenge.","authors":"Christian Soto-Catalan, Alain-S Comtois, David Martin, Suzanne Leclerc","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Heart rate variability (HRV) is used as a measure of autonomic nervous system (ANS) function and is based on heart rate (HR) beat-to-beat time interval variance analysis. Various techniques are used for recording HR, however, few studies have compared Holter-type recordings vs HR monitors (HRM) during an orthostatic challenge.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Compare HRV measures from an electrocardiogram (ECG) Holter and a HRM as a tool for investigating ANS response for post-concussion rehabilitation follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-seven participants (<i>n</i> = 27; 15 females, 12 males), 18 to 35 years old, non-smoking, no history of cardiac illness and physically active (3 times per week, 60 mins, moderate intensity exercise) participated in the study. ECG signals and HRM were recorded beat-to-beat (R-R) simultaneously. A motorized tilt table was set at 0 degree for supine and 85 degrees for standing position. Participants were instructed to remain for 7 minutes in each position. R-R signals from both Holter and Polar HRM recording starting points were matched before further analysis. Bland-Altman plots were used to compare recordings from the Holter (gold standard) and the Polar HRM in both positions. Unpaired <i>t</i>-test was used to compare measurements obtained with both systems. Significance was set at <i>p</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were observed between R-R measurements taken with both systems under equal conditions (supine and standing). Same variables under similar conditions were significantly correlated (<i>p</i> = 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both recording and analysis systems (Holter vs HRM) yielded comparable results. Thus, both systems appear valid and interchangeable for HRV analysis for measuring orthostatic challenge HRV responses.</p>","PeriodicalId":14171,"journal":{"name":"International journal of exercise science","volume":"17 2","pages":"810-818"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11379062/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of exercise science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Heart rate variability (HRV) is used as a measure of autonomic nervous system (ANS) function and is based on heart rate (HR) beat-to-beat time interval variance analysis. Various techniques are used for recording HR, however, few studies have compared Holter-type recordings vs HR monitors (HRM) during an orthostatic challenge.
Objectives: Compare HRV measures from an electrocardiogram (ECG) Holter and a HRM as a tool for investigating ANS response for post-concussion rehabilitation follow-up.
Methods: Twenty-seven participants (n = 27; 15 females, 12 males), 18 to 35 years old, non-smoking, no history of cardiac illness and physically active (3 times per week, 60 mins, moderate intensity exercise) participated in the study. ECG signals and HRM were recorded beat-to-beat (R-R) simultaneously. A motorized tilt table was set at 0 degree for supine and 85 degrees for standing position. Participants were instructed to remain for 7 minutes in each position. R-R signals from both Holter and Polar HRM recording starting points were matched before further analysis. Bland-Altman plots were used to compare recordings from the Holter (gold standard) and the Polar HRM in both positions. Unpaired t-test was used to compare measurements obtained with both systems. Significance was set at p < 0.05.
Results: No significant differences were observed between R-R measurements taken with both systems under equal conditions (supine and standing). Same variables under similar conditions were significantly correlated (p = 0.0001).
Conclusion: Both recording and analysis systems (Holter vs HRM) yielded comparable results. Thus, both systems appear valid and interchangeable for HRV analysis for measuring orthostatic challenge HRV responses.