Perioperative medicine & outcomes
Evaluation of a wrist-worn photoplethysmography monitor for heart rate variability estimation in patients recovering from laparoscopic colon resection
Authors' conclusion
The wrist PPG shows some potential for use in a clinical setting.
Study context
- Population
- Patients recovering from laparoscopic colon resection, monitored for three days or until discharge or reoperation
- Participants
- 31 patients
- Comparison
- Wrist-worn PPG monitor vs Holter ECG reference
- Outcome
- Accuracy of HRV parameters obtained with wrist PPG vs ECG reference
Methodological detailspost hoc analysis, retrospectively registered
- Post hoc analysis
- Retrospectively registered
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Beat-to-beat interval accuracy and HRV parameter relative MAE
| Test or model | Beat-to-beat mean error (ME) | Beat-to-beat mean absolute error (MAE) | SDNN relative MAE | TRI relative MAE | TINN relative MAE | RMSSD relative MAE | pNN50 relative MAE | NN50 relative MAE | SD2 relative error | DFA α1 relative error | DFA α2 relative error | SD1 relative error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrist PPG | - 1.34 ms | 10.4 ms | 9.11% | 11.4% | 11.1% | 34.3% | 139% | 188% | 7.5% | 8.25% | 4.71% | 34.3% |
Wrist PPG
Beat-to-beat mean error (ME)- 1.34 ms
Beat-to-beat mean absolute error (MAE)10.4 ms
SDNN relative MAE9.11%
TRI relative MAE11.4%
TINN relative MAE11.1%
RMSSD relative MAE34.3%
pNN50 relative MAE139%
NN50 relative MAE188%
SD2 relative error7.5%
DFA α1 relative error8.25%
DFA α2 relative error4.71%
SD1 relative error34.3%
Original publication
Evaluation of a wrist-worn photoplethysmography monitor for heart rate variability estimation in patients recovering from laparoscopic colon resection. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 8 April 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →