背景:帕金森病(PD)是第二常见的神经退行性疾病,影响了大约1%的世界人口。越来越多的证据表明,有氧体育锻炼有助于减轻疾病的运动和非运动症状。在最近一项关于运动对PD的作用的试点研究中,我们试图通过监测心率(HR)来确认运动强度.为此,我们要求参与者佩戴胸带HR监护仪(PolarElectroOy)和FitbitCharge4(FitbitInc)腕上佩戴的HR监护仪,由于其便利性,因此可以作为潜在的代理.PolarH10已被证明可提供高度精确的R-R间隔测量。因此,在这项研究中,我们将其视为黄金标准。研究表明,FitbitCharge4在健康参与者中的准确性与PolarH10相当。尚未确定Fitbit在休息和运动期间是否与PolarH10一样准确。
目的:本研究旨在比较FitbitCharge4与PolarH10在PD患者休息时和高强度运动计划中的HR监测。
方法:使用两种设备同时收集了来自11名(6名男性和5名女性)参与者的596次运动。早期PD患者(Hoehn和Yahr≤2)参加了为PD患者设计的6个月运动计划。他们每周参加3次一小时的锻炼。他们在每次会议期间都穿着Fitbit和PolarH10。会议包括休息,热身,剧烈运动,和冷却期。我们通过将每个时期的平均HR与PolarH10(HRFitbit-HRPolar)测量的相应平均值进行比较,计算了FitbitCharge4在休息(5分钟)和剧烈运动(20分钟)时的HR偏差。我们还测量了FitbitCharge4的灵敏度和特异性,以检测超过高强度运动阈值的平均HR,定义为个人理论最高HR的70%。研究了2种设备之间的不同类型的相关性。
结果:平均偏差为休息时每分钟1.68次(bpm),高强度运动时每分钟6.29bpm,在这两种情况下,FitbitCharge4都高估了。Fitbit在休息和密集运动期间的平均偏差为3.98bpm。该设备识别高强度运动课程的灵敏度为97.14%。这两个设备之间的相关性是非线性的,表明Fitbit倾向于在高HR值下饱和。
结论:FitbitCharge4在评估一组PD患者的运动强度方面的表现与PolarH10相当(平均偏倚3.98bpm)。在未来的临床队列研究中,该设备可以被认为是更笨重的胸部佩戴设备的合理替代品。
BACKGROUND: Parkinson disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, affecting approximately 1% of the world\'s population. Increasing evidence suggests that aerobic physical exercise can be beneficial in mitigating both motor and nonmotor symptoms of the disease. In a recent pilot
study of the role of exercise on PD, we sought to confirm exercise
intensity by monitoring heart rate (HR). For this purpose, we asked participants to wear a chest strap HR monitor (Polar Electro Oy) and the Fitbit Charge 4 (Fitbit Inc) wrist-worn HR monitor as a potential proxy due to its convenience. Polar H10 has been shown to provide highly accurate R-R interval measurements. Therefore, we treated it as the gold standard in this
study. It has been shown that Fitbit Charge 4 has comparable accuracy to Polar H10 in healthy participants. It has yet to be determined if the Fitbit is as accurate as Polar H10 in patients with PD during rest and exercise.
OBJECTIVE: This
study aimed to compare Fitbit Charge 4 to Polar H10 for monitoring HR in patients with PD at rest and during an intensive exercise program.
METHODS: A total of 596 exercise sessions from 11 (6 male and 5 female) participants were collected simultaneously with both devices. Patients with early-stage PD (Hoehn and Yahr ≤2) were enrolled in a 6-month exercise program designed for patients with PD. They participated in 3 one-hour exercise sessions per week. They wore both Fitbit and Polar H10 during each session. Sessions included rest, warm-up, intense exercise, and cool-down periods. We calculated the bias in the HR of the Fitbit Charge 4 at rest (5 min) and during intense exercise (20 min) by comparing the mean HR during each of the periods to the respective means measured by Polar H10 (HRFitbit - HRPolar). We also measured the sensitivity and specificity of Fitbit Charge 4 to detect average HRs that exceed the threshold for intensive exercise, defined as 70% of an individual\'s theoretical maximum HR. Different types of correlations between the 2 devices were investigated.
RESULTS: The mean bias was 1.68 beats per minute (bpm) at rest and 6.29 bpm during high-
intensity exercise, with an overestimation by Fitbit Charge 4 in both conditions. The mean bias of the Fitbit across both rest and intensive exercise periods was 3.98 bpm. The device\'s sensitivity in identifying high-
intensity exercise sessions was 97.14%. The correlation between the 2 devices was nonlinear, suggesting Fitbit\'s tendency to saturate at high values of HR.
CONCLUSIONS: The performance of Fitbit Charge 4 is comparable to Polar H10 for assessing exercise intensity in a cohort of patients with PD (mean bias 3.98 bpm). The device could be considered a reasonable surrogate for more cumbersome chest-worn devices in future studies of clinical cohorts.