Heart rate variability (HRV) measurements via ambulatory monitors have become common. In this study, published in October 2020, a group of American authors examined the validity of recording R-R intervals using the Polar V800™ compared to 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECG) among middle-aged (44.7±10.1years), overweight to obese (29.8±4.3 kg.m-2) adults (n = 25) with hypertension (132.3±12.2/ 84.3±10.2 mmHg).
After resting for 5-min in the supine position, R-R intervals were simultaneously recorded using the Polar V800™ and the 12-lead ECG. Artifacts present in uncorrected (UN) R-R intervals were corrected with the Kubios HRV Premium (ver. 3.2.) automatic (AC) and threshold-based (TBC) correction, and manual correction (MC) methods.
Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA), and effect sizes (ES) were calculated. They detected 71 errors with the Polar V800™ for an error rate of 0.85%.
The bias (LoAs), ES, and ICC between UN and ECG R-R intervals were 0.69ms (-215.80 to +214.42ms), 0.004, and 0.79, respectively. Correction of artifacts improved the agreeability between the Polar V800™ and ECG HRV measures.
The biases (LoAs) between the AC, TBC, and MC and ECG R-R intervals were 3.79ms (-130.32 to +137.90ms), 1.16ms (-92.67 to +94.98ms), and 0.37ms (-41.20 to +41.94ms), respectively. The ES of AC, TBC, and MC were 0.024, 0.008, and 0.002, and ICC were 0.91, 0.95, and 1.00, respectively.
R-R intervals measured using the Polar V800™ compared to 12-lead ECG were comparable in adults with hypertension, especially after the artifacts were corrected by MC. However, TBC correction also yielded acceptable results.
If you liked this post, don’t forget to share so that others can find it, too.
Or give it a thumbs up!
I like this article
Please note that the information provided in the Polar Blog articles cannot replace individual advice from health professionals. Please consult your physician before starting a new fitness program.