The important task for modern physiology is remote monitoring of the functions of physiological systems of the human organism during the competitive and training activity. It is well known that analysis of heart rate variability is one of the effective methods to evaluate the physiological changes which occur in the response to physical loads. In order to perform the correct analysis of heart rate variability by newly designed devices, it is necessary to confirm the sufficient level of accuracy in the registration of RR intervals. The purpose of our research was to analyze the accuracy of RR time series measurements by software-hardware complex “Rytm” and validity of subsequently calculated heart rate variability indexes in conditions of exercise performance. Material and methods. The study involved 20 healthy male adults 20-21 years old. Recording of cardio intervals was performed simultaneously with «Polar RS800», and software-hardware complex “Rytm”. The subjects performed a step test in a rate of 20 steps per minute, platform height – 40 cm, duration – 2 minutes. Results and discussion. Heart rate variability indexes were calculated by Kubios HRV 2.1 software. The totally 4707 pairs of RR intervals were analyzed. The average bias between the RR interval, registered by software-hardware complex «Rytm» and «Polar RS800», was only 0.06 s. We revealed the narrow Bland–Altman limits of agreement (3.72 − -3.83 ms) and the highest value of the intraclass correlation coefficient (1.000) between the data of these two devices. The Bland–Altman plot confirmed good agreement between the devices in the measurements of RR intervals. At the same time, the significant difference (p = 0.002) of the two data sets was found according to paired Wilcoxon test. As the final goal of the registration of RR time series is calculation of individual heart rate variability indexes, we intended to test the presence of substantial differences in the heart rate variability indexes, derived from the data from two devices − «Polar RS800» and software-hardware complex «Rytm». We compared the results of time-domain (HR, STD RR, RMSSD, pNN50), frequency-domain (VLF, LF, HF, LF / HF) and nonlinear (RR tri index, SD1, SD2) analysis of heart rate variability. It was found that only for the LF/HF ratio a statistically significant difference was present. Conclusion. The results suggest the good agreement between most of the heart rate variability indexes based on data of software-hardware complex «Rytm» and well approved heart rate monitoring systems («Polar RS800»)

Keywords: heart rate variability, Bland–Altman method, intraclass correlation coefficient

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 279K

1. Dunn J, Runge R, Snyder M. Wearables and the medical revolution. Personalized Medicine. 2018; 15(5): 429-448. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2018-0044
2. Taj-Eldin M, Ryan C, O'Flynn B, Galvin P. A Review of Wearable Solutions for Physiological and Emotional Monitoring for Use by People with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Caregivers. Sensors. 2018; 18(12): 4271. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18124271
3. Dias D, Paulo Silva Cunha J. Wearable Health Devices-Vital Sign Monitoring, Systems and Technologies. Sensors. 2018; 18(8): 2414. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082414
4. Liu Y, Wang H, Zhao W, Zhang M, Qin H, Xie Y. Flexible, Stretchable Sensors for Wearable Health Monitoring: Sensing Mechanisms, Materials, Fabrication Strategies and Features. Sensors. 2018; 18(2): 645. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18020645
5. Majumder S, Mondal T, Deen M. Wearable Sensors for Remote Health Monitoring. Sensors. 2017; 17(12): 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17010130
6. Bellenger C, Fuller J, Thomson R, Davison K, Robertson E, Buckley J. Monitoring Athletic Training Status Through Autonomic Heart Rate Regulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine. 2016; 46(10): 1461-1486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0484-2
7. Dong J. The role of heart rate variability in sports physiology. Exp Ther Med. 2016; 11(5): 1531-1536. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2016.3104
8. da Silva V, de Oliveira N, Silveira H, Mello R, Deslandes A. Heart Rate Variability Indexes as a Marker of Chronic Adaptation in Athletes: A Systematic Review. Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology. 2014; 20(2): 108-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/anec.12237
9. Vovkanych L., Boretsky Y., Sokolovsky V., Berhtraum D., Kras S. Validity of the software-hardware complex “Rytm” for measuring the RR intervals and heart rate variability at rest. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2020. V.20 (3), P. 1599–1605.
10. Дрозд И. П., Гриджук М. Ю., Мукалов И. О. Определение индивидуальной радиорезистентности человека. Saarbrucken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2014. 197 с.
11. Cassirame J, Vanhaesebrouck R, Chevrolat S, Mourot L. Accuracy of the Garmin 920 XT HRM to perform HRV analysis. Austral Physical Engineer Sci Med. 2017; 40(4): 831-839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-017-0593-8
12. Braga L, Prado G, Umeda I, Kawauchi T, Taboada A, Azevedo R, et al. Reproducibility for Heart Rate Variability Analysis during 6-Min Walk Test in Patients with Heart Failure and Agreement between Devices. PLOS ONE. 2016; 11(12): e0167407. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167407
13. Kingsley M, Lewis M, Marson R. Comparison of Polar 810 s and an Ambulatory ECG System for RR Interval Measurement During Progressive Exercise. Int J Sports Med. 2005; 26(01/02): 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-817878
14. de Rezende Barbosa M, Silva N, de Azevedo F, Pastre C, Vanderlei L. Comparison of Polar®RS800G3™heart rate monitor with Polar®S810i™and electrocardiogram to obtain the series of RR intervals and analysis of heart rate variability at rest. Clin Physiol Func Imaging. 2014; 36(2): 112-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12203
15. Nunan D, Jakovljevic D, Donovan G, Hodges L, Sandercock G, Brodie D. Levels of agreement for RR intervals and short-term heart rate variability obtained from the Polar S810 and an alternative system. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008; 103(5): 529-537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-008-0742-6
16. Porto L, Junqueira Jr L. Comparison of Time-Domain Short-Term Heart Interval Variability Analysis Using a Wrist-Worn Heart Rate Monitor and the Conventional Electrocardiogram. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2009; 32(1): 43-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02175.x
17. Weippert M, Kumar M, Kreuzfeld S, Arndt D, Rieger A, Stoll R. Comparison of three mobile devices for measuring R-R intervals and heart rate variability: Polar S810i, Suunto t6 and an ambulatory ECG system. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010; 109(4): 779-786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-010-1415-9
18. Vanderlei L, Silva R, Pastre C, Azevedo F, Godoy M. Comparison of the Polar S810i monitor and the ECG for the analysis of heart rate variability in the time and frequency domains. Brazil J Med Biol Res. 2008; 41(10): 854-859. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2008005000039
19. Hernando D, Garatachea N, Almeida R, Casajús J, Bailón R. Validation of Heart Rate Monitor «Polar RS800» for Heart Rate Variability Analysis During Exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2018; 32(3): 716-725. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001662
20. Montaño A, Brown F, Credeur D, Williams M, Stoner L. Telemetry-derived heart rate variability responses to a physical stressor. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2016; 37(4): 421-427. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12320
21. Wallén M, Hasson D, Theorell T, Canlon B, Osika W. Possibilities and limitations of the «Polar RS800» in measuring heart rate variability at rest. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011; 112(3): 1153-1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-011-2079-9
22. Caminal P, Sola F, Gomis P, Guasch E, Perera A, Soriano N et al. Validity of the Polar V800 monitor for measuring heart rate variability in mountain running route conditions. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2018; 118(3): 669-677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-018-3808-0
23. Giles D, Draper N. Heart Rate Variability During Exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2018; 32(3): 726-735. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001800
24. Giles D, Draper N, Neil W. Validity of the Polar V800 heart rate monitor to measure RR intervals at rest. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2015; 116(3): 563-571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-015-3303-9
25. Akintola A, van de Pol V, Bimmel D, Maan A, van Heemst D. Comparative Analysis of the Equivital EQ02 Lifemonitor with Holter Ambulatory ECG Device for Continuous Measurement of ECG, Heart Rate, and Heart Rate Variability: A Validation Study for Precision and Accuracy. Front Physiol. 2016; 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2016.00391
26. Doğan N. Bland-Altman analysis: A paradigm to understand correlation and agreement. Turk J Emerg Med. 2018; 18(4): 139-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.09.001
27. Watson P, Petrie A. Method agreement analysis: A review of correct methodology. Theriogenology. 2010; 73(9): 1167-1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.01.003
28. Koo T, Li M. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropract Med. 2016; 15(2): 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
29. Weir J. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the sem. J Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19(1): 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1519/00124278-200502000-00038