BACKGROUND: To assess the accuracy of four wearable heart rate (HR) monitors in patients with established cardiovascular disease enrolled in phase II or III cardiac rehabilitation (CR). METHODS: Eighty adult patients enrolled in phase II or III CR were monitored during a CR session that included exercise on a treadmill and/or stationary cycle. Participants underwent HR monitoring with standard ECG limb leads, an electrocardiographic (ECG) chest strap monitor (Polar H7), and two randomly assigned wrist-worn HR monitors (Apple Watch, Fitbit Blaze, Garmin Forerunner 235, TomTom Spark Cardio), one on each wrist. HR was recorded at rest and at 3, 5, and 7 minutes of steady-state exercise on the treadmill and stationary cycle. RESULTS: Across all exercise conditions, the chest strap monitor (Polar H7) had the best agreement with ECG (rc=0.99) followed by the Apple Watch (rc=0.80), Fitbit Blaze (rc=0.78), TomTom Spark (rc=0.76) and Garmin Forerunner (rc=0.52). There was variability in accuracy under different exercise conditions. On the treadmill, only the Fitbit Blaze performed well (rc=0.76), while on the stationary cycle, Apple Watch (rc=0.89) and TomTom Spark (rc=0.85) were most accurate. CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac patients, the accuracy of wearable, optically based HR monitors varies, and none of those tested was as accurate as an electrode-containing chest monitor. This observation has implications for in-home CR, as electrode-containing chest monitors should be used when accurate HR measurement is imperative.
BACKGROUND: To assess the accuracy of four wearable heart rate (HR) monitors in patients with established cardiovascular disease enrolled in phase II or III cardiac rehabilitation (CR). METHODS: Eighty adult patients enrolled in phase II or III CR were monitored during a CR session that included exercise on a treadmill and/or stationary cycle. Participants underwent HR monitoring with standard ECG limb leads, an electrocardiographic (ECG) chest strap monitor (Polar H7), and two randomly assigned wrist-worn HR monitors (Apple Watch, Fitbit Blaze, Garmin Forerunner 235, TomTom Spark Cardio), one on each wrist. HR was recorded at rest and at 3, 5, and 7 minutes of steady-state exercise on the treadmill and stationary cycle. RESULTS: Across all exercise conditions, the chest strap monitor (Polar H7) had the best agreement with ECG (rc=0.99) followed by the Apple Watch (rc=0.80), Fitbit Blaze (rc=0.78), TomTom Spark (rc=0.76) and Garmin Forerunner (rc=0.52). There was variability in accuracy under different exercise conditions. On the treadmill, only the Fitbit Blaze performed well (rc=0.76), while on the stationary cycle, Apple Watch (rc=0.89) and TomTom Spark (rc=0.85) were most accurate. CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac patients, the accuracy of wearable, optically based HR monitors varies, and none of those tested was as accurate as an electrode-containing chest monitor. This observation has implications for in-home CR, as electrode-containing chest monitors should be used when accurate HR measurement is imperative.
Authors: Sidney C Smith; Emelia J Benjamin; Robert O Bonow; Lynne T Braun; Mark A Creager; Barry A Franklin; Raymond J Gibbons; Scott M Grundy; Loren F Hiratzka; Daniel W Jones; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Margo Minissian; Lori Mosca; Eric D Peterson; Ralph L Sacco; John Spertus; James H Stein; Kathryn A Taubert Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Mark H Drazner; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen A Geraci; Tamara Horwich; James L Januzzi; Maryl R Johnson; Edward K Kasper; Wayne C Levy; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; John J V McMurray; Judith E Mitchell; Pamela N Peterson; Barbara Riegel; Flora Sam; Lynne W Stevenson; W H Wilson Tang; Emily J Tsai; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ezra A Amsterdam; Nanette K Wenger; Ralph G Brindis; Donald E Casey; Theodore G Ganiats; David R Holmes; Allan S Jaffe; Hani Jneid; Rosemary F Kelly; Michael C Kontos; Glenn N Levine; Philip R Liebson; Debabrata Mukherjee; Eric D Peterson; Marc S Sabatine; Richard W Smalling; Susan J Zieman Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christopher M O'Connor; David J Whellan; Kerry L Lee; Steven J Keteyian; Lawton S Cooper; Stephen J Ellis; Eric S Leifer; William E Kraus; Dalane W Kitzman; James A Blumenthal; David S Rendall; Nancy Houston Miller; Jerome L Fleg; Kevin A Schulman; Robert S McKelvie; Faiez Zannad; Ileana L Piña Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-04-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Muhammad Etiwy; Zade Akras; Lauren Gillinov; Alaa Alashi; Robert Wang; Gordon Blackburn; Stephen M Gillinov; Dermot Phelan; A Marc Gillinov; Penny L Houghtaling; Hoda Javadikasgari; Milind Y Desai Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2020-06
Authors: Jan M Mühlen; Julie Stang; Esben Lykke Skovgaard; Pedro B Judice; Pablo Molina-Garcia; William Johnston; Luís B Sardinha; Francisco B Ortega; Brian Caulfield; Wilhelm Bloch; Sulin Cheng; Ulf Ekelund; Jan Christian Brønd; Anders Grøntved; Moritz Schumann Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Guillaume Chevance; Natalie M Golaszewski; Elizabeth Tipton; Eric B Hekler; Matthew Buman; Gregory J Welk; Kevin Patrick; Job G Godino Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 4.947
Authors: Dhruv R Seshadri; Barb Bittel; Dalton Browsky; Penny Houghtaling; Colin K Drummond; Milind Desai; A Marc Gillinov Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 3.316