Why can we not use 3 x Polar H10 chest straps for 300 USD for the patients in the hospital?

Last Updated on March 12, 2024 by pg@petergamma.org

For other activies than intense activities with strong body movements, which are discussed in this paper:

3 channel ECG devices are gold standard for HR measurement, which means are the most accurate devices:

https://petergamma.org/category/ecg-devices/

The cheapest 3 channel ECG can currently found from OpenBCI:

https://docs.openbci.com/GettingStarted/Biosensing-Setups/ECGSetup/

starting from 380 USD for Bluetooth or WIFI connectivity:

099d. OpenBCI made in China – what do we know about it?

Validation of 3 channel OpenBCI for HRV can be found here:

https://www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405-8440(21)01251-2.pdf

The cheapest 3 channel ECG device from iWorx we know is the TA220. It is a shop keeper on eBay since years, and is available there for 1 400 USD:

https://www.ebay.ch/itm/185245471492

It requires addionally the iWork ECG toolbox for 1 000 USD. Rob ter Horst uses 2 Polar H10 chest straps simultaneously. We suppose that this has a high accuracy, which has not been validated in a scientific papers, but only in Rob ter Horsts tests. But if the Polar H10 is so highly accurate, as Rob ter Horst claims, why can we not choose 3 Polar H10 chest straps, which cost around 300 USD, this a bit less than the above 3 channel OpenBCI setup, instead of the iWorx T220?

And why do iWorx, BIOPAC, Adinstruments, and g.tec not sell a multi-pack with 3 x Polar H10 chest strap as their most affordable gold standard heart rate measurement setup?

The problem starts with the A/D conversion rate of the Polar H10, which is as far as we know less than 16 bit, which is required for research and medical grade applications:

90.02 Research & medical grade ECG devices which some of those were used to study the accuracy of consumer grade HRMs in different papers

To validate such a 3x Polar H10 chest stap setup whould in theory be possible. But who invests time in validating a setup which has not the specifications of research and medical grade devices which is 16 bit to validate it? If we study the literature, it has eventually been shown a long time ago, that devices with less than 16 bit A/D are not accurate enough for research and medical grade applications.