OBJECTIVE: Heart period variability has been considered for clinical assessment of autonomic function, determining the presence of haemorrhage or disease states, and for predicting mortality from traumatic injury. However, for heart period variability to be clinically useful, a number of important methodological issues should be addressed, including the minimum number of R-R intervals (RRI) required for accurate derivation, and the reproducibility of these metrics. METHODS: ECGs were recorded for > or =10 min in 18 resting, supine subjects (12 M/6 F; 19-55 years). Heart period variability analyses included 21 time, frequency and complexity domain metrics. For assessment of minimum RRIs required, measurements were made from ECG recordings of 5 min down to 30 s for time and frequency domain metrics, and from 800 RRIs down to 100 RRIs for complexity metrics, by methodical truncation of the data set. Inter-subject variability was assessed by calculating the range and co-efficient of variation (%CV) across all subjects. Two independent 30 s or 100 RRI ECG segments were used to assess intra-subject variability via calculation of %CV in each subject. RESULTS: Six time and frequency domain metrics were robust down to 30 s of data, while five complexity metrics were robust down to 100 RRIs. All time and frequency domain metrics (except for RRI) exhibited high inter-subject variability (CVs > or = 30.0%), while five of eleven complexity metrics displayed low inter-subject variability (CVs < or = 8.5%). In the assessment of intra-subject variability in metrics valid with 30 s or 100 RRIs of ECG, only one time domain and four complexity metrics had CVs < 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Metrics that are highly reproducible and require few RRIs are advantageous for patient monitoring as less time is required to assess physiological status and initiate early interventions. Based on our analyses from healthy, resting humans, we have identified a select cohort of heart period variability metrics that performed well in regards to these two criteria.
OBJECTIVE: Heart period variability has been considered for clinical assessment of autonomic function, determining the presence of haemorrhage or disease states, and for predicting mortality from traumatic injury. However, for heart period variability to be clinically useful, a number of important methodological issues should be addressed, including the minimum number of R-R intervals (RRI) required for accurate derivation, and the reproducibility of these metrics. METHODS: ECGs were recorded for > or =10 min in 18 resting, supine subjects (12 M/6 F; 19-55 years). Heart period variability analyses included 21 time, frequency and complexity domain metrics. For assessment of minimum RRIs required, measurements were made from ECG recordings of 5 min down to 30 s for time and frequency domain metrics, and from 800 RRIs down to 100 RRIs for complexity metrics, by methodical truncation of the data set. Inter-subject variability was assessed by calculating the range and co-efficient of variation (%CV) across all subjects. Two independent 30 s or 100 RRI ECG segments were used to assess intra-subject variability via calculation of %CV in each subject. RESULTS: Six time and frequency domain metrics were robust down to 30 s of data, while five complexity metrics were robust down to 100 RRIs. All time and frequency domain metrics (except for RRI) exhibited high inter-subject variability (CVs > or = 30.0%), while five of eleven complexity metrics displayed low inter-subject variability (CVs < or = 8.5%). In the assessment of intra-subject variability in metrics valid with 30 s or 100 RRIs of ECG, only one time domain and four complexity metrics had CVs < 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Metrics that are highly reproducible and require few RRIs are advantageous for patient monitoring as less time is required to assess physiological status and initiate early interventions. Based on our analyses from healthy, resting humans, we have identified a select cohort of heart period variability metrics that performed well in regards to these two criteria.
Authors: William H Cooke; Jose Salinas; Victor A Convertino; David A Ludwig; Denise Hinds; James H Duke; Fredrick A Moore; John B Holcomb Journal: J Trauma Date: 2006-02
Authors: John A Morris; Patrick R Norris; Asli Ozdas; Lemuel R Waitman; Frank E Harrell; Anna E Williams; Hanqing Cao; Judith M Jenkins Journal: J Trauma Date: 2006-06
Authors: G A Lanza; V Guido; M M Galeazzi; M Mustilli; R Natali; C Ierardi; C Milici; F Burzotta; V Pasceri; F Tomassini; A Lupi; A Maseri Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1998-12-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Andriy I Batchinsky; Jose Salinas; Tom Kuusela; Corina Necsoiu; John Jones; Leopoldo C Cancio Journal: Shock Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Patricia C García-Suárez; Jorge A Aburto-Corona; Iván Rentería; Luis M Gómez-Miranda; José Moncada-Jiménez; Fábio Santos Lira; Barbara Moura Antunes; Alberto Jiménez-Maldonado Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Murad Megjhani; Farhad Kaffashi; Kalijah Terilli; Ayham Alkhachroum; Behnaz Esmaeili; Kevin William Doyle; Santosh Murthy; Angela G Velazquez; E Sander Connolly; David Jinou Roh; Sachin Agarwal; Ken A Loparo; Jan Claassen; Amelia Boehme; Soojin Park Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Kathy L Ryan; Caroline A Rickards; Carmen Hinojosa-Laborde; William H Cooke; Victor A Convertino Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Salene M W Jones; Katherine A Guthrie; Andrea Z LaCroix; Barbara Sternfeld; Carol A Landis; Susan D Reed; Andrea Dunn; Bette Caan; Lee S Cohen; Julie Hunt; Katherine M Newton Journal: Clin Auton Res Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 5.625
Authors: Edgard Salomão; Denise Aya Otsuki; Andre Luis Correa; Denise Tabacchi Fantoni; Fernando dos Santos; Maria Claudia Irigoyen; Jose Otavio Costa Auler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 3.240