When I have an Afib episode my heart rate by definition is irregular.
During a 30 second test on Kardia mobile the rate typically ranges from about 40 bpm to 120 bpm. The device then gives a summary figure of about 80 bpm.
Is it accurate to say that my heart rate during an episode is 80 bpm?
The reason I ask is because I freqently read that the aim is to maintain bpm below 100
My experience is that Kardia is pretty accurate for heart rate in afib, so 80 is the right number. You can double check by counting R-R intervals (tall spikes) or count at wrist or neck if you can feel pulse, but you will probably find that Kardia is either on the money or very close.
Jim
Learn to count your own pulse at your wrist over a 30 second interval and double it.
Thanks Bob, but as mjames has suggested I find it difficult to feel my pulse.
Also, I am hardly going to spend £100 on a Kardia and not use it. 🙂
But the point is that within those 30 seconds there is a massive variation in bpm.
I am happy though that mjames has confirmed that the number of beats over 30 seconds, however irregular, is the correct measure to use.
And most important my peak rate is well below the level that would be cause for concern.
I also find it difficult to take my pulse at my wrist so my GP told me to take it at my neck instead which is much easier. Off centre at my throat beneath my jaw. Give it a go😊
Heart rate changes minute to minute in AFib. The Kardia will be accurate for that 30 seconds, and will give rate per minute based on that count. The next 30 seconds can be totally different. That's the nature of AFib.
Thanks baba, and you raise a valid point.
However I am happy that my bpm in Afib does not vary dramatically minute to minute.
I also have a Fitbit Charge 5 watch which logs my Afib bpm every second although it rarely registers my Afib when I am not asleep. The data collected here do tend to correlate with the range seen on my Kardia mobile.
Yes, that's right. The same happens with all home ECG devices, providing only an average. It's somewhat meaningless, I suppose since the rate can sometimes work out at 180+ then be 80+bpm. My average seems to have dropped this past year to around 100bpm, with some at 85bpm and some at 145bpm.
Steve
I'm extremely ignorant, but I fail to see the point of an average in a condition such as AFib - surely the highest rates are the ones that are doing the damage, so an average is, as far as I'm concerned of little value?
Only persistent can, eventually do damage. But yes, I agree with you. It is much like some take their blood pressure during AF to see if it falls to low, which can bring on dizziness and fainting, say. And yet the way BP machines work, they cannot measure BP while AF is in progress, it seems, so another not that useful measurement.
Steve
This is my most recent Kardia chart. This shows a range from 42bpm to 115bpm with an average of 77bpm over the 30 second period.
I do not believe that the average rate can be ignored.
Just had a further thought on this objection to using an average heart rate over 15, 30 0r 60 seconds.
If I manually measured my heart rate at my wrist or neck over 15, 30 or 60 seconds the number of beats per minute would have to be an average.
Without an ecg, smartwatch or oximeter there would be no way of knowing the highest rate of any single beat during the measurement period..
I read a Canadian study that compared the readings on a variety of devices to a hospital EKG. They did not fare well and depending on the activity at the time the results can be even less accurate. Counting on your wrist can also be inaccurate.
Often hospital EKG’s are read by a computer algorithm and not an expert person. Some of these algorithms are old and not that accurate.
I have a LBBB which makes the EKG difficult to read even by an expert who chooses one of the various methods available to do this. Each method will give a different result.
I watched a video about a doctor teaching how to read EKG’s. I suspect many doctors are not experts at it especially if they always rely on a computer. The EKG is not the be all and end all for diagnosis. It is just one somewhat imperfect tool and your doctor hopefully realizes this.
The same applies to taking blood pressure. Few medical professionals do it correctly and thus medications are incorrectly prescribed. Everyone should learn how to measure blood pressure and then insure the professional does it correctly before taking medication.
I believe that you can set your Kardia to measure a period longer than 30 seconds, maybe up to 5 minutes? That might get you a result that you are more happy to take as accurate. Don’t shoot me if I am wrong, I have never tried this on mine.
I somewhat distrust my Kardia as it shows an HR as it records but then when it finishes its scan report it summarises to a completely different HR figure., usually higher. This would suggest that it is reporting an HR based on two different periods or different algorithms.
However, my Kardia reports show an HR around 80 usually and I’m happy to go with that and not treat the number as a critical issue and then I try and get on with life.
max HR to be below 100bpm, not average rate.
Thank you. Do you have a source for this statement?
And do you mean when inactive since heart rate will usually exceed 100 when exercising, even just walking? Also, what about the odd ectopic beat or two which may exceed 100?
I would have thought that there would often be a need to use some sort of average.
Hi, resting upper HR to be below 100. If it is jumping up to 100 or more then that is not good. Ectopics shouldn’t be an issue if you only experience 2 or 3 each minute, of course if you are measuring your bpm based on, say, a 30 second snapshot and you happen to have a few ectopics in that time then it will register as a higher HR, then like I said if it jumps up to 100 or more then that is a problem . However if that is unusual or rare you shouldn’t be too worried but if you’re getting ectopics all the time with an elevated HR then that is not good. When you are exerting yourself hard enough to notice your breathing has become heavier it is normal for your hr to be above 100 even when not in A/F, but when you are resting your upper hr should be similar to your lower hr i.e. fairly consistent and both under 100. I would not hesitate to discuss with your Doctor if you’re concerned. best regards.
Heart Rate Part 1
Irratic heart rate resting
Anyone else have a Resting Heart Rate of 50 bpm?
Increased heart rate after AF ablation
WHAT IS MY HEART RATE ??
