Cargando…

Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination

Recent study points to the value of a non-linear heart rate variability (HRV) biomarker using detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA a1) for aerobic threshold determination (HRVT). Significance of recording artefact, correction methods and device bias on DFA a1 during exercise and HRVT is unclear. Gas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rogers, Bruce, Giles, David, Draper, Nick, Mourot, Laurent, Gronwald, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7865269/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33530473
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21030821
_version_ 1783647806412554240
author Rogers, Bruce
Giles, David
Draper, Nick
Mourot, Laurent
Gronwald, Thomas
author_facet Rogers, Bruce
Giles, David
Draper, Nick
Mourot, Laurent
Gronwald, Thomas
author_sort Rogers, Bruce
collection PubMed
description Recent study points to the value of a non-linear heart rate variability (HRV) biomarker using detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA a1) for aerobic threshold determination (HRVT). Significance of recording artefact, correction methods and device bias on DFA a1 during exercise and HRVT is unclear. Gas exchange and HRV data were obtained from 17 participants during an incremental treadmill run using both ECG and Polar H7 as recording devices. First, artefacts were randomly placed in the ECG time series to equal 1, 3 and 6% missed beats with correction by Kubios software’s automatic and medium threshold method. Based on linear regression, Bland Altman analysis and Wilcoxon paired testing, there was bias present with increasing artefact quantity. Regardless of artefact correction method, 1 to 3% missed beat artefact introduced small but discernible bias in raw DFA a1 measurements. At 6% artefact using medium correction, proportional bias was found (maximum 19%). Despite this bias, the mean HRVT determination was within 1 bpm across all artefact levels and correction modalities. Second, the HRVT ascertained from synchronous ECG vs. Polar H7 recordings did show an average bias of minus 4 bpm. Polar H7 results suggest that device related bias is possible but in the reverse direction as artefact related bias.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7865269
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78652692021-02-07 Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination Rogers, Bruce Giles, David Draper, Nick Mourot, Laurent Gronwald, Thomas Sensors (Basel) Article Recent study points to the value of a non-linear heart rate variability (HRV) biomarker using detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA a1) for aerobic threshold determination (HRVT). Significance of recording artefact, correction methods and device bias on DFA a1 during exercise and HRVT is unclear. Gas exchange and HRV data were obtained from 17 participants during an incremental treadmill run using both ECG and Polar H7 as recording devices. First, artefacts were randomly placed in the ECG time series to equal 1, 3 and 6% missed beats with correction by Kubios software’s automatic and medium threshold method. Based on linear regression, Bland Altman analysis and Wilcoxon paired testing, there was bias present with increasing artefact quantity. Regardless of artefact correction method, 1 to 3% missed beat artefact introduced small but discernible bias in raw DFA a1 measurements. At 6% artefact using medium correction, proportional bias was found (maximum 19%). Despite this bias, the mean HRVT determination was within 1 bpm across all artefact levels and correction modalities. Second, the HRVT ascertained from synchronous ECG vs. Polar H7 recordings did show an average bias of minus 4 bpm. Polar H7 results suggest that device related bias is possible but in the reverse direction as artefact related bias. MDPI 2021-01-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7865269/ /pubmed/33530473 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21030821 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Rogers, Bruce
Giles, David
Draper, Nick
Mourot, Laurent
Gronwald, Thomas
Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination
title Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination
title_full Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination
title_fullStr Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination
title_full_unstemmed Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination
title_short Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination
title_sort influence of artefact correction and recording device type on the practical application of a non-linear heart rate variability biomarker for aerobic threshold determination
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7865269/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33530473
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21030821
work_keys_str_mv AT rogersbruce influenceofartefactcorrectionandrecordingdevicetypeonthepracticalapplicationofanonlinearheartratevariabilitybiomarkerforaerobicthresholddetermination
AT gilesdavid influenceofartefactcorrectionandrecordingdevicetypeonthepracticalapplicationofanonlinearheartratevariabilitybiomarkerforaerobicthresholddetermination
AT drapernick influenceofartefactcorrectionandrecordingdevicetypeonthepracticalapplicationofanonlinearheartratevariabilitybiomarkerforaerobicthresholddetermination
AT mourotlaurent influenceofartefactcorrectionandrecordingdevicetypeonthepracticalapplicationofanonlinearheartratevariabilitybiomarkerforaerobicthresholddetermination
AT gronwaldthomas influenceofartefactcorrectionandrecordingdevicetypeonthepracticalapplicationofanonlinearheartratevariabilitybiomarkerforaerobicthresholddetermination