ABSTRACT
We compared classic ECG-derived versus a mobile approach to heart rate variability (HRV) measurement. METHODS & RESULTS: 29 young adult healthy volunteers underwent a simultaneous recording of heart rate using an ECG and a chest heart rate monitor at supine rest, during mental stress and active standing. Mean RR interval, Standard Deviation of Normal-to-Normal (SDNN) of RR intervals, and Root Mean Square of the Successive Differences (RMSSD) between RR intervals were computed in 168 pairs of 5-minute epochs by in-house software on a PC (only sinus beats) and by mobile application "ELITEHRV" on a smartphone (no beat type identification). ECG analysis showed that 33.9% of the recordings contained at least one non-sinus beat or artefact, the mobile app did not report this. The mean RR intervals were significantly longer (pâ¯=â¯0.0378), while SDNN (pâ¯=â¯0.0001) and RMSSD (pâ¯=â¯0.0199) were smaller for the mobile approach. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of identical HRV parameters by ECG-based and mobile approaches are not equivalent.
