Reliability And Validity Of The Oban Heart Rate Monitor At Sea Level And High Altitude

PURPOSE: Determine the reliability and validity of the OBAN HR monitor that allows algorithm integration for prediction of illness at sea level and high altitude (HA). Other commercially available HR monitors do not allow proprietary algorithms to be embedded. METHODS: Forty-two healthy unacclimatized Soldiers (n = 42, mean ± SD; age = 26 ± 5 yr) wore the OBAN (Odic, Inc) HR monitor and WristOx2 3150 (Nonin, Inc) gold-standard HR monitor at their baseline residence (BLR) for 2 days. Volunteers were then transported to Taos Ski Valley, NM (2845 m) and outfitted with both devices before ascending to high altitude (HA; 3600 m) where they remained 3 days. Reliability HR data was collected every 20 sec across two identical testing days at BLR during a 10-min resting ventilation test. Validity HR data was collected every 20 sec from both monitors for 2 days at BLR (~40 h) and 3 days at HA (~60 h). The individual validity data was time-aligned for both devices such that each had the same number of measurements at BLR (~7022) and HA (~10,440). HR values <40 bpm or > 200 bpm were eliminated. Reliability was calculated using 2-way mixed, absolute agreement, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, 3, 1), Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), Coefficient of Variation (CV, %), and Minimal Detectable Change (MDC). Validity was calculated using the Mean Difference (MD) score and a one-sample t-test, Standard Error of the Estimate (SEE), Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (r); and Bland-Altman 95% Limits of Agreement (LOA). RESULTS: The HR reliability values for the OBAN at BLR were as follows: ICC = 0.84 [0.65, 0.92] (p < 0.001); SEM = 1.2 bpm [0.8, 1.8]; CV = 4.6%; MDC = 3.4 bpm [2.2, 4.6], demonstrating good reliability. The validity values for HR (bpm) for the OBAN (69.1 ± 8.3) compared to WristOx2 (68.5 ± 7.9) at BLR were the following: MD = -0.63 bpm (p < 0.06), SEE = 2.02 bpm, r = 0.97 (p < 0.001), LOA = -0.63 ± 4.09 bpm demonstrating acceptable validity. At HA, HR values (bpm) for the OBAN (90.1 ± 9.4) compared to WristOx2 (86.6 ± 7.9) demonstrated unacceptable MD (-3.5 ± 4.6 bpm; p < 0.001) prohibiting further analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The OBAN demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity at BLR but was not in agreement with the WristOx2 at HA, requiring further investigation. USAMRDC