Konstantinos Georgiou1, Andreas V Larentzakis2, Nehal N Khamis3, Ghadah I Alsuhaibani3, Yasser A Alaska3, Elias J Giallafos4. 1. Department of Biological Chemistry, Faculty of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 2. 1st Propaedeutic Surgical Clinic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 3. Clinical Skills & Simulation Center, Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, KSA. 4. Medical Physics Simulation Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing number of wearable devices claim to provide accurate, cheap and easily applicable heart rate variability (HRV) indices. This is mainly accomplished by using wearable photoplethysmography (PPG) and/or electrocardiography (ECG), through simple and non-invasive techniques, as a substitute of the gold standard RR interval estimation through electrocardiogram. Although the agreement between pulse rate variability (PRV) and HRV has been evaluated in the literature, the reported results are still inconclusive especially when using wearable devices. AIM: The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate if wearable devices provide a reliable and precise measurement of classic HRV parameters in rest as well as during exercise. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search strategy was implemented to retrieve relevant articles from MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases, as well as, through internet search. The 308 articles retrieved were reviewed for further evaluation according to the predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Sixteen of them integrated ECG - HRV technology and two of them PPG - PRV technology. All of them examined wearable devices accuracy in RV detection during rest, while only eight of them during exercise. The correlation between classic ECG derived HRV and the wearable RV ranged from very good to excellent during rest, yet it declined progressively as exercise level increased. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable devices may provide a promising alternative solution for measuring RV. However, more robust studies in non-stationary conditions are needed using appropriate methodology in terms of number of subjects involved, acquisition and analysis techniques implied.
BACKGROUND: A growing number of wearable devices claim to provide accurate, cheap and easily applicable heart rate variability (HRV) indices. This is mainly accomplished by using wearable photoplethysmography (PPG) and/or electrocardiography (ECG), through simple and non-invasive techniques, as a substitute of the gold standard RR interval estimation through electrocardiogram. Although the agreement between pulse rate variability (PRV) and HRV has been evaluated in the literature, the reported results are still inconclusive especially when using wearable devices. AIM: The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate if wearable devices provide a reliable and precise measurement of classic HRV parameters in rest as well as during exercise. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search strategy was implemented to retrieve relevant articles from MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases, as well as, through internet search. The 308 articles retrieved were reviewed for further evaluation according to the predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Sixteen of them integrated ECG - HRV technology and two of them PPG - PRV technology. All of them examined wearable devices accuracy in RV detection during rest, while only eight of them during exercise. The correlation between classic ECG derived HRV and the wearable RV ranged from very good to excellent during rest, yet it declined progressively as exercise level increased. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable devices may provide a promising alternative solution for measuring RV. However, more robust studies in non-stationary conditions are needed using appropriate methodology in terms of number of subjects involved, acquisition and analysis techniques implied.
Authors: Giuseppe Curigliano; Evandro de Azambuja; Daniel Lenihan; Maria Grazia Calabrò; Daniela Cardinale; Carlo Maria Cipolla Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-05-07
Authors: Peter H Charlton; Panicos A Kyriaco; Jonathan Mant; Vaidotas Marozas; Phil Chowienczyk; Jordi Alastruey Journal: Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 10.961
Authors: Yejin Lee; Ryan J Walsh; Mandy W M Fong; Marek Sykora; Michelle M Doering; Alex W K Wong Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2021-10-06 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Jari Halonen; Tero J Martikainen; Onni E Santala; Jukka A Lipponen; Helena Jäntti; Tuomas T Rissanen; Mika P Tarvainen; Tomi P Laitinen; Tiina M Laitinen; Maaret Castrén; Eemu-Samuli Väliaho; Olli A Rantula; Noora S Naukkarinen; Juha E K Hartikainen Journal: JMIR Cardio Date: 2022-06-21
Authors: Sarah Anne Graham; Dilip V Jeste; Ellen E Lee; Tsung-Chin Wu; Xin Tu; Ho-Cheol Kim; Colin A Depp Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 4.773