Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Validity of (Ultra-)Short Recordings for Heart Rate Variability Measurements
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Validity of (Ultra-)Short Recordings for Heart Rate Variability Measurements
Do you wish to request the book?
Validity of (Ultra-)Short Recordings for Heart Rate Variability Measurements
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Validity of (Ultra-)Short Recordings for Heart Rate Variability Measurements
2015
Overview
In order to investigate the applicability of routine 10s electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings for time-domain heart rate variability (HRV) calculation we explored to what extent these (ultra-)short recordings capture the \"actual\" HRV.
The standard deviation of normal-to-normal intervals (SDNN) and the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) were measured in 3,387 adults. SDNN and RMSSD were assessed from (ultra)short recordings of 10s(3x), 30s, and 120s and compared to 240s-300s (gold standard) measurements. Pearson's correlation coefficients (r), Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement and Cohen's d statistics were used as agreement analysis techniques.
Agreement between the separate 10s recordings and the 240s-300s recording was already substantial (r = 0.758-0.764/Bias = 0.398-0.416/d = 0.855-0.894 for SDNN; r = 0.853-0.862/Bias = 0.079-0.096/d = 0.150-0.171 for RMSSD), and improved further when three 10s periods were averaged (r = 0.863/Bias = 0.406/d = 0.874 for SDNN; r = 0.941/Bias = 0.088/d = 0.167 for RMSSD). Agreement increased with recording length and reached near perfect agreement at 120s (r = 0.956/Bias = 0.064/d = 0.137 for SDNN; r = 0.986/Bias = 0.014/d = 0.027 for RMSSD). For all recording lengths and agreement measures, RMSSD outperformed SDNN.
Our results confirm that it is unnecessary to use recordings longer than 120s to obtain accurate measures of RMSSD and SDNN in the time domain. Even a single 10s (standard ECG) recording yields a valid RMSSD measurement, although an average over multiple 10s ECGs is preferable. For SDNN we would recommend either 30s or multiple 10s ECGs. Future research projects using time-domain HRV parameters, e.g. genetic epidemiological studies, could calculate HRV from (ultra-)short ECGs enabling such projects to be performed at a large scale.
