ObjectivesThe primary objective was to compare the 24-hour mean heart rate (HR) provided by a smart collar with 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiography (Holter) in healthy dogs. The secondary objective was to compare the two-minute HR values between the two methods during periods of activity and rest. Animals, Materials, and MethodsTwelve healthy dogs were fitted with both Holter and smart collars. Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman agreement (BA) analysis were used to compare the 24-hour mean HR between two methods. The BA analysis for repeated measures and bias plots were used to compare two-minute HR between methods. ResultsThe regression analysis showed no significant differential or proportional bias between the methods to estimate 24-hour mean HR. The BA analysis showed a mean bias of 2.2 beats per minute (bpm) (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.2, 4.8) with an upper limit of agreement (LOA) of 9.6 bpm (5.1, 14.1) and a lower LOA of -5.1 bpm (-9.5 to -0.6). However, BA analysis of two-minute HR showed poor agreement between methods with wide LOA at rest and during activity. The smart collar did not provide any HR information for 43% of the total possible recording duration (range = 24% to 79%). ConclusionsThe smart collar can provide a potentially clinically useful estimate of 24-hour HR in dogs with normal sinus rhythm. The collar did not provide reliable two-minute HR measurements due to inaccuracies in HR estimation during periods of activity and the inability to report any HR during large periods of the recording.
Read full abstract