BACKGROUND: Newer techniques to evaluate baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) are based on the analysis of blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) time series in the time or frequency domain. These novel approaches are steadily gaining popularity, since they do not require injection of vasoactive substances, nor do they rely on a complex experimental set-up. AIM: This review outlines and compares some basic features of the latest methods to assess spontaneous baroreflex function. RESULTS: Modern techniques for the estimation of spontaneous BRS are based on a variety of signal processing schemes and derive information on the baroreflex function from different perspectives. Thus factors such as respiration and other non-stationary agents may have different influences on the estimates provided by each of these approaches. Notwithstanding such individual specificity, however, it has been observed that in several physiological and pathophysiological conditions these techniques often provide comparable information on BRS changes over time, particularly when the estimates are averaged over time windows of a few minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the general agreement in the pattern of BRS among most modern methods, it seems reasonable to employ the most validated of these techniques, for which data obtained in several studies are already available.
BACKGROUND: Newer techniques to evaluate baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) are based on the analysis of blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) time series in the time or frequency domain. These novel approaches are steadily gaining popularity, since they do not require injection of vasoactive substances, nor do they rely on a complex experimental set-up. AIM: This review outlines and compares some basic features of the latest methods to assess spontaneous baroreflex function. RESULTS: Modern techniques for the estimation of spontaneous BRS are based on a variety of signal processing schemes and derive information on the baroreflex function from different perspectives. Thus factors such as respiration and other non-stationary agents may have different influences on the estimates provided by each of these approaches. Notwithstanding such individual specificity, however, it has been observed that in several physiological and pathophysiological conditions these techniques often provide comparable information on BRS changes over time, particularly when the estimates are averaged over time windows of a few minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the general agreement in the pattern of BRS among most modern methods, it seems reasonable to employ the most validated of these techniques, for which data obtained in several studies are already available.
Authors: S Carrasco-Sosa; M J Gaitán-González; R González-Camarena; Oscar Yáñez-Suárez Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2005-10-27 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Viktor Švigelj; Matjaž Šinkovec; Viktor Avbelj; Roman Trobec; Ludovit Gaspar; Daniel Petrovič; Peter Kruzliak Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Hossam I Mustafa; Satish R Raj; André Diedrich; Bonnie K Black; Sachin Y Paranjape; William D Dupont; Gordon H Williams; Italo Biaggioni; David Robertson Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2012-01-13
Authors: Philip L Mar; Cyndya A Shibao; Emily M Garland; Bonnie K Black; Italo Biaggioni; André Diedrich; Sachin Y Paranjape; David Robertson; Satish R Raj Journal: Clin Sci (Lond) Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 6.124
Authors: Jan Giso Peter; Martin Glos; Alexander Blau; Thomas Penzel; Gert Baumann; Ingo Fietze Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Janet M Mullington; Monika Haack; Maria Toth; Jorge M Serrador; Hans K Meier-Ewert Journal: Prog Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 8.194