Validity of the Polar V800 heart rate monitor to measure RR intervals at rest

Purpose To assess the validity of RR intervals and short-term heart rate variability (HRV) data obtained from the Polar V800 heart rate monitor, in comparison to an electrocardiograph (ECG). Method Twenty participants completed an active orthostatic test using the V800 and ECG. An improved method for the identification and correction of RR intervals was employed prior to HRV analysis. Agreement of the data was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland–Altman limits of agreement (LoA), and effect size (ES). Results A small number of errors were detected between ECG and Polar RR signal, with a combined error rate of 0.086 %. The RR intervals from ECG to V800 were significantly different, but with small ES for both supine corrected and standing corrected data (ES <0.001). The bias (LoA) were 0.06 (−4.33 to 4.45 ms) and 0.59 (−1.70 to 2.87 ms) for supine and standing intervals, respectively. The ICC was >0.999 for both supine and standing corrected intervals. When analysed with the same HRV software no significant differences were observed in any HRV parameters, for either supine or standing; the data displayed small bias and tight LoA, strong ICC (>0.99) and small ES (≤0.029). Conclusions The V800 improves over previous Polar models, with narrower LoA, stronger ICC and smaller ES for both the RR intervals and HRV parameters. The findings support the validity of the Polar V800 and its ability to produce RR interval recordings consistent with an ECG. In addition, HRV parameters derived from these recordings are also highly comparable.

Purpose
To assess the validity of RR intervals and short-term heart rate variability (HRV) data obtained from the Polar V800 heart rate monitor, in comparison to an electrocardiograph (ECG).
Method
Twenty participants completed an active orthostatic test using the V800 and ECG. An improved method for the identification and correction of RR intervals was employed prior to HRV analysis. Agreement of the data was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland–Altman limits of agreement (LoA), and effect size (ES).
Results
A small number of errors were detected between ECG and Polar RR signal, with a combined error rate of 0.086 %. The RR intervals from ECG to V800 were significantly different, but with small ES for both supine corrected and standing corrected data (ES <0.001). The bias (LoA) were 0.06 (−4.33 to 4.45 ms) and 0.59 (−1.70 to 2.87 ms) for supine and standing intervals, respectively. The ICC was >0.999 for both supine and standing corrected intervals. When analysed with the same HRV software no significant differences were observed in any HRV parameters, for either supine or standing; the data displayed small bias and tight LoA, strong ICC (>0.99) and small ES (≤0.029).
Conclusions
The V800 improves over previous Polar models, with narrower LoA, stronger ICC and smaller ES for both the RR intervals and HRV parameters. The findings support the validity of the Polar V800 and its ability to produce RR interval recordings consistent with an ECG. In addition, HRV parameters derived from these recordings are also highly comparable.

Archived with thanks to European Journal of Applied Physiology