Open Access
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Sports Med Int Open 2018; 02(01): E9-E15
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-122081
Clinical Sciences
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018

Inter-Day Reliability of Finapres® Cardiovascular Measurements During Rest and Exercise

Authors

  • Mark Waldron

    1   St Mary's University Twickenham London, School of Sport, Health and Applied Sci, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Stephen David Patterson

    1   St Mary's University Twickenham London, School of Sport, Health and Applied Sci, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Owen Jeffries

    1   St Mary's University Twickenham London, School of Sport, Health and Applied Sci, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Further Information

Publication History

received 03 August 2017
revised 02 October 2017

accepted 13 October 2017

Publication Date:
17 November 2017 (online)

Abstract

This study evaluated the inter-day test-retest reliability of the Finapres® finger pulse pressure measuring device during rest and exercise. Eight male participants visited the laboratory twice for evaluation of the inter-day reliability of the Finapres® finger-pulse pressure device to measure: heart rate (HR), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (Q̇) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at rest, and treadmill walking at 3 km/h on 1% and 5% inclines. There were no systematic biases for any of the variables between days. The coefficient of variation (CV%) and 95% limits of agreement (95% LoA) was smallest for MAP (CV%=1.6–3.2%; LoA total error=4.6–12 mmHg) and HR (CV%=3.2–3.9%; LoA total error=6.8–11.9 b/min), increasing with exercise intensity (gradient). The pattern of error was different for Q̇, with decreasing CV% (4.8–3.8%) and LoA (4.2–5.7 L/min) from rest to 5% gradient, with the larger errors occurring for resting SV (CV=7.4%; LoA total error=21.5 ml). The device measures MAP and HR reliably between days; however, error increases at higher intensities. The measurement of SV is less reliable, probably owing to underlying algorithmic assumptions.