| Literature DB >> 33050249 |
Clifton J Holmes1,2, Michael V Fedewa2, Lee J Winchester2, Hayley V MacDonald2, Stefanie A Wind2, Michael R Esco2.
Abstract
The aim was to examine the validity of heart rate variability (HRV) measurements from photoplethysmography (PPG) via a smartphone application pre- and post-resistance exercise (RE) and to examine the intraday and interday reliability of the smartphone PPG method. Thirty-one adults underwent two simultaneous ultrashort-term electrocardiograph (ECG) and PPG measurements followed by 1-repetition maximum testing for back squats, bench presses, and bent-over rows. The participants then performed RE, where simultaneous ultrashort-term ECG and PPG measurements were taken: two pre- and one post-exercise. The natural logarithm of the root mean square of successive normal-to-normal (R-R) differences (LnRMSSD) values were compared with paired-sample t-tests, Pearson product correlations, Cohen's d effect sizes (ESs), and Bland-Altman analysis. Intra-class correlations (ICC) were determined between PPG LnRMSSDs. Significant, small-moderate differences were found for all measurements between ECG and PPG: BasePre1 (ES = 0.42), BasePre2 (0.30), REPre1 (0.26), REPre2 (0.36), and REPost (1.14). The correlations ranged from moderate to very large: BasePre1 (r = 0.59), BasePre2 (r = 0.63), REPre1 (r = 0.63), REPre2 (r = 0.76), and REPost (r = 0.41)-all p < 0.05. The agreement for all the measurements was "moderate" (0.10-0.16). The PPG LnRMSSD exhibited "nearly-perfect" intraday reliability (ICC = 0.91) and "very large" interday reliability (0.88). The smartphone PPG was comparable to the ECG for measuring HRV at rest, but with larger error after resistance exercise.Entities:
Keywords: autonomic modulation; fatigue; mobile devices; photoplethysmography; pulse rate variability; recovery
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33050249 PMCID: PMC7600564 DOI: 10.3390/s20205738
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Comparison of electrocardiograph (ECG) and photoplethysmography (PPG)-derived log transformation of the root mean square of successive RR differences (LnRMSSD).
|
|
| Effect Size |
| SEE | Ratio | CE ± 1.96SD | Upper | Lower | Trend ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BasePre1 | ECG | 31 | 4.05 ± 0.65 | ||||||||||
| PPG | 31 | 4.38 ± 0.61 | 0.003 | 0.42 | Small | 0.59 | 0.54 | 0.13 | 0.34 ± 1.12 | 1.46 | −0.79 | −0.09 | |
| BasePre2 | ECG | 31 | 4.06 ± 0.63 | ||||||||||
| PPG | 31 | 4.29 ± 0.59 | 0.019 | 0.30 | Small | 0.63 | 0.50 | 0.12 | 0.23 ± 1.03 | 1.26 | −0.79 | −0.08 | |
| REPre1 | ECG | 31 | 4.05 ± 0.59 | ||||||||||
| PPG | 31 | 4.25 ± 0.53 | 0.041 | 0.26 | Small | 0.63 | 0.47 | 0.11 | 0.19 ± 0.95 | 1.15 | −0.76 | −0.13 | |
| REPre2 | ECG | 29 | 3.88 ± 0.62 | ||||||||||
| PPG | 29 | 4.15 ± 0.58 | 0.001 | 0.36 | Small | 0.76 | 0.42 | 0.10 | 0.28 ± 0.83 | 1.07 | −0.55 | −0.10 | |
| REPost | ECG | 31 | 2.44 ± 1.00 | ||||||||||
| PPG | 31 | 3.50 ± 0.72 | <0.001 | 1.14 | Mod | 0.41 | 0.92 | 0.16 | 0.98 ± 0.96 | 2.94 | −0.82 | −0.33 | |
Notes: ECG = electrocardiogram; PPG = photoplethysmography; LnRMSSD = log transformation of the root mean square of successive RR differences; N = number; M ± SD = mean ± standard deviation; SEE = standard error of estimate; CE = constant error; Base = baseline; RE = resistance exercise.
Figure 1Bland–Altman plots comparing the log transformation of the root mean square of successive RR differences (LnRMSSD) values from the smartphone application photoplethysmography (PPG) with the criterion electrocardiogram (ECG). The solid lines represent the mean bias, whereas the outside dashed lines represent the 95% limits of agreement. Black diamonds represent “optimal” and “good” signal quality measures, and white circles represent “failed” signal quality.
Signal quality category-based comparative analysis.
|
| MD | ES |
|
|
| BAR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optimal | BasePre1 | 19 | 0.32 | Small | 0.058 | 0.48 | 0.037 | 0.08 |
| BasePre2 | 20 | 0.16 | Trivial | 0.280 | 0.57 | 0.009 | 0.05 | |
| REPre1 | 22 | 0.10 | Trivial | 0.322 | 0.56 | 0.006 | 0.05 | |
| REPre2 | 22 | 0.09 | Trivial | 0.051 | 0.94 | <0.001 | 0.07 | |
| REPost | 19 | 0.66 | Moderate | <0.001 | 0.78 | <0.001 | 0.36 | |
| Good | BasePre1 | 7 | 0.34 | Small | 0.009 | 0.92 | 0.003 | 0.07 |
| BasePre2 | 9 | 0.32 | Small | 0.001 | 0.94 | <0.001 | 0.05 | |
| REPre1 | 7 | 0.36 | Small | 0.058 | 0.92 | 0.003 | 0.04 | |
| REPre2 | 4 | 0.80 | Moderate | 0.039 | 0.92 | 0.083 | 0.08 | |
| REPost | 6 | 1.52 | Large | <0.001 | −0.90 | 0.015 | 0.37 | |
| Failed | BasePre1 | 5 | 0.46 | Small | 0.066 | 0.26 | 0.670 | 0.07 |
| BasePre2 | 2 | 0.55 | Small | 0.272 | 1.00 | <0.001 | 0.05 | |
| REPre1 | 2 | 0.75 | Moderate | 0.403 | −1.00 | <0.001 | 0.04 | |
| REPre2 | 3 | 0.93 | Moderate | 0.088 | −0.80 | 0.401 | 0.06 | |
| REPost | 6 | 1.73 | Large | 0.036 | −0.28 | 0.596 | 0.30 |
Notes: MD = mean difference; ES = effect size; BAR = Bland–Altman ratio; Base = baseline; RE = resistance exercise.
Intraday and interday reliability of PPG-derived LnRMSSD measurements.
|
|
|
| ICC | 95% CI |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||||
| LnRMSSD | Intraday | 4.34 ± 0.20 | 0.91 | 2.08 | 0.149 | 0.91 | 0.812 | 0.956 | <0.001 |
| Interday | 4.28 ± 0.29 | 0.87 | 5.02 | 0.171 | 0.88 | 0.795 | 0.940 | <0.001 | |
Notes: PPG = photoplethysmography; LnRMSSD = log transformation of the root mean square of successive RR differences; M ± SD = mean ± standard deviation; α = Cronbach’s alpha; ICC = intra-class correlations; CI = confidence intervals.