Accuracy of Consumer Wearable Heart Rate Measurement During an Ecologically Valid 24-Hour Period: Intraindividual Validation Study.

Wrist-worn smart watches and fitness monitors (ie, wearables) have become widely adopted by consumers and are gaining increased attention from researchers for their potential contribution to naturalistic digital measurement of health in a scalable, mobile, and unobtrusive way. Various studies have examined the accuracy of these devices in controlled laboratory settings (eg, treadmill and stationary bike); however, no studies have investigated the heart rate accuracy of wearables during a continuous and ecologically valid 24-hour period of actual consumer device use conditions. The aim of this study was to determine the heart rate accuracy of 2 popular wearable devices, the Apple Watch 3 and Fitbit Charge 2, as compared with the gold standard reference method, an ambulatory electrocardiogram (ECG), during consumer device use conditions in an individual. Data were collected across 5 daily conditions, including sitting, walking, running, activities of daily living (ADL; eg, chores, brushing teeth), and sleeping. One participant, (first author; 29-year-old Caucasian male) completed a 24-hour ecologically valid protocol by wearing 2 popular wrist wearable devices (Apple Watch 3 and Fitbit Charge 2). In addition, an ambulatory ECG (Vrije Universiteit Ambulatory Monitoring System) was used as the gold standard reference method, which resulted in the collection of 102,740 individual heartbeats. A single-subject design was used to keep all variables constant except for wearable devices while providing a rapid response design to provide initial assessment of wearable accuracy for allowing the research cycle to keep pace with technological advancements. Accuracy of these devices compared with the gold standard ECG was assessed using mean error, mean absolute error, and mean absolute percent error. These data were supplemented with Bland-Altman analyses and concordance class correlation to assess agreement between devices. The Apple Watch 3 and Fitbit Charge 2 were generally highly accurate across the 24-hour condition. Specifically, the Apple Watch 3 had a mean difference of -1.80 beats per minute (bpm), a mean absolute error percent of 5.86%, and a mean agreement of 95% when compared with the ECG across 24 hours. The Fitbit Charge 2 had a mean difference of -3.47 bpm, a mean absolute error of 5.96%, and a mean agreement of 91% when compared with the ECG across 24 hours. These findings varied by condition. The Apple Watch 3 and the Fitbit Charge 2 provided acceptable heart rate accuracy (<±10%) across the 24 hour and during each activity, except for the Apple Watch 3 during the daily activities condition. Overall, these findings provide preliminary support that these devices appear to be useful for implementing ambulatory measurement of cardiac activity in research studies, especially those where the specific advantages of these methods (eg, scalability, low participant burden) are particularly suited to the population or research question.

Nelson BW ，Allen NB 《JMIR mHealth and uHealth》

Accuracy of Apple Watch Measurements for Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: Cross-Sectional Study.

Wrist-worn tracking devices such as the Apple Watch are becoming more integrated in health care. However, validation studies of these consumer devices remain scarce. This study aimed to assess if mobile health technology can be used for monitoring home-based exercise in future cardiac rehabilitation programs. The purpose was to determine the accuracy of the Apple Watch in measuring heart rate (HR) and estimating energy expenditure (EE) during a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) in patients with cardiovascular disease. Forty patients (mean age 61.9 [SD 15.2] yrs, 80% male) with cardiovascular disease (70% ischemic, 22.5% valvular, 7.5% other) completed a graded maximal CPET on a cycle ergometer while wearing an Apple Watch. A 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was used to measure HR; indirect calorimetry was used for EE. HR was analyzed at three levels of intensity (seated rest, HR1; moderate intensity, HR2; maximal performance, HR3) for 30 seconds. The EE of the entire test was used. Bias or mean difference (MD), standard deviation of difference (SDD), limits of agreement (LoA), mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. Bland-Altman plots and scatterplots were constructed. SDD for HR1, HR2, and HR3 was 12.4, 16.2, and 12.0 bpm, respectively. Bias and LoA (lower, upper LoA) were 3.61 (-20.74, 27.96) for HR1, 0.91 (-30.82, 32.63) for HR2, and -1.82 (-25.27, 21.63) for HR3. MAE was 6.34 for HR1, 7.55 for HR2, and 6.90 for HR3. MAPE was 10.69% for HR1, 9.20% for HR2, and 6.33% for HR3. ICC was 0.729 (P<.001) for HR1, 0.828 (P<.001) for HR2, and 0.958 (P<.001) for HR3. Bland-Altman plots and scatterplots showed good correlation without systematic error when comparing Apple Watch with ECG measurements. SDD for EE was 17.5 kcal. Bias and LoA were 30.47 (-3.80, 64.74). MAE was 30.77; MAPE was 114.72%. ICC for EE was 0.797 (P<.001). The Bland-Altman plot and a scatterplot directly comparing Apple Watch and indirect calorimetry showed systematic bias with an overestimation of EE by the Apple Watch. In patients with cardiovascular disease, the Apple Watch measures HR with clinically acceptable accuracy during exercise. If confirmed, it might be considered safe to incorporate the Apple Watch in HR-guided training programs in the setting of cardiac rehabilitation. At this moment, however, it is too early to recommend the Apple Watch for cardiac rehabilitation. Also, the Apple Watch systematically overestimates EE in this group of patients. Caution might therefore be warranted when using the Apple Watch for measuring EE.

Falter M ，Budts W ，Goetschalckx K ，Cornelissen V ，Buys R ... -  《JMIR mHealth and uHealth》

Validation of Polar OH1 optical heart rate sensor for moderate and high intensity physical activities.

Hettiarachchi IT ，Hanoun S ，Nahavandi D ，Nahavandi S ... -  《PLoS One》

Heart Rate Measurement Accuracy of Fitbit Charge 4 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Active2: Device Evaluation Study.

Fitness trackers and smart watches are frequently used to collect data in longitudinal medical studies. They allow continuous recording in real-life settings, potentially revealing previously uncaptured variabilities of biophysiological parameters and diseases. Adequate device accuracy is a prerequisite for meaningful research. This study aims to assess the heart rate recording accuracy in two previously unvalidated devices: Fitbit Charge 4 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Active2. Participants performed a study protocol comprising 5 resting and sedentary, 2 low-intensity, and 3 high-intensity exercise phases, lasting an average of 19 minutes 27 seconds. Participants wore two wearables simultaneously during all activities: Fitbit Charge 4 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Active2. Reference heart rate data were recorded using a medically certified Holter electrocardiogram. The data of the reference and evaluated devices were synchronized and compared at 1-second intervals. The mean, mean absolute error, mean absolute percentage error, Lin concordance correlation coefficient, Pearson correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots were analyzed. A total of 23 healthy adults (mean age 24.2, SD 4.6 years) participated in our study. Overall, and across all activities, the Fitbit Charge 4 slightly underestimated the heart rate, whereas the Samsung Galaxy Watch Active2 overestimated it (-1.66 beats per minute [bpm]/3.84 bpm). The Fitbit Charge 4 achieved a lower mean absolute error during resting and sedentary activities (seated rest: 7.8 vs 9.4; typing: 8.1 vs 11.6; laying down [left]: 7.2 vs 9.4; laying down [back]: 6.0 vs 8.6; and walking slowly: 6.8 vs 7.7 bpm), whereas the Samsung Galaxy Watch Active2 performed better during and after low- and high-intensity activities (standing up: 12.3 vs 9.0; walking fast: 6.1 vs 5.8; stairs: 8.8 vs 6.9; squats: 15.7 vs 6.1; resting: 9.6 vs 5.6 bpm). Device accuracy varied with activity. Overall, both devices achieved a mean absolute percentage error of just <10%. Thus, they were considered to produce valid results based on the limits established by previous work in the field. Neither device reached sufficient accuracy during seated rest or keyboard typing. Thus, both devices may be eligible for use in respective studies; however, researchers should consider their individual study requirements.

Nissen M ，Slim S ，Jäger K ，Flaucher M ，Huebner H ，Danzberger N ，Fasching PA ，Beckmann MW ，Gradl S ，Eskofier BM ... -  《-》

Heart rate measures from the Apple Watch, Fitbit Charge HR 2, and electrocardiogram across different exercise intensities.

Thomson EA ，Nuss K ，Comstock A ，Reinwald S ，Blake S ，Pimentel RE ，Tracy BL ，Li K ... -  《-》