John Hart1. 1. Assistant Director of Research, Sherman College of Chiropractic, P.O. Box 1452, Spartanburg, SC 29304, , Ext. 232, Email: jhart@sherman.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: One model for neurological assessment in chiropractic pertains to autonomic variability, tested commonly with heart rate variability (HRV). Since HRV may not be convenient to use on all patient visits, more user-friendly methods may help fill-in the gaps. Accordingly, this study tests the association between manual pulse rate and heart rate variability. The manual rates were also compared to the heart rate derived from HRV. METHODS: Forty-eight chiropractic students were examined with heart rate variability (SDNN and mean heart rate) and two manual radial pulse rate measurements. Inclusion criteria consisted of participants being chiropractic students. Exclusion criteria for 46 of the participants consisted of a body mass index being greater than 30, age greater than 35, and history of: a) dizziness upon standing, b) treatment of psychiatric disorders, and c) diabetes. No exclusion criteria were applied to the remaining two participants who were also convenience sample volunteers. Linear associations between the manual pulse rate methods and the two heart rate variability measures (SDNN and mean heart) were tested with Pearson's correlation and simple linear regression. RESULTS: Moderate strength inverse (expected) correlations were observed between both manual pulse rate methods and SDNN (r = -0.640, 95% CI -0.781, -0.435; r = -0.632, 95% CI -0.776, -0.425). Strong direct (expected) relationships were observed between the manual pulse rate methods and heart rate derived from HRV technology (r = 0.934, 95% CI 0.885, 0.962; r = 0.941, 95% CI 0.897, 0.966). CONCLUSION: Manual pulse rates may be a useful option for assessing autonomic variability. Furthermore, this study showed a strong relationship between manual pulse rates and heart rate derived from HRV technology.
INTRODUCTION: One model for neurological assessment in chiropractic pertains to autonomic variability, tested commonly with heart rate variability (HRV). Since HRV may not be convenient to use on all patient visits, more user-friendly methods may help fill-in the gaps. Accordingly, this study tests the association between manual pulse rate and heart rate variability. The manual rates were also compared to the heart rate derived from HRV. METHODS: Forty-eight chiropractic students were examined with heart rate variability (SDNN and mean heart rate) and two manual radial pulse rate measurements. Inclusion criteria consisted of participants being chiropractic students. Exclusion criteria for 46 of the participants consisted of a body mass index being greater than 30, age greater than 35, and history of: a) dizziness upon standing, b) treatment of psychiatric disorders, and c) diabetes. No exclusion criteria were applied to the remaining two participants who were also convenience sample volunteers. Linear associations between the manual pulse rate methods and the two heart rate variability measures (SDNN and mean heart) were tested with Pearson's correlation and simple linear regression. RESULTS: Moderate strength inverse (expected) correlations were observed between both manual pulse rate methods and SDNN (r = -0.640, 95% CI -0.781, -0.435; r = -0.632, 95% CI -0.776, -0.425). Strong direct (expected) relationships were observed between the manual pulse rate methods and heart rate derived from HRV technology (r = 0.934, 95% CI 0.885, 0.962; r = 0.941, 95% CI 0.897, 0.966). CONCLUSION: Manual pulse rates may be a useful option for assessing autonomic variability. Furthermore, this study showed a strong relationship between manual pulse rates and heart rate derived from HRV technology.
Authors: D Van Hoogenhuyze; N Weinstein; G J Martin; J S Weiss; J W Schaad; X N Sahyouni; D Fintel; W J Remme; D H Singer Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1991-12-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Judith Hsia; Joseph C Larson; Judith K Ockene; Gloria E Sarto; Matthew A Allison; Susan L Hendrix; Jennifer G Robinson; Andrea Z LaCroix; JoAnn E Manson Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-02-03
Authors: Lisa Ecklund-Flores; Michael M Myers; Catherine Monk; Albany Perez; Hein J Odendaal; William P Fifer Journal: Dev Psychobiol Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.038
Authors: Lilah M Besser; Michael L Alosco; Liliana Ramirez Gomez; Xiao-Hua Zhou; Ann C McKee; Robert A Stern; John Gunstad; Julie A Schneider; Helena Chui; Walter A Kukull Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: William R Tebar; Raphael M Ritti-Dias; Jorge Mota; Bruna T C Saraiva; Tatiana M Damato; Leandro D Delfino; Breno Q Farah; Luiz Carlos M Vanderlei; Diego G D Christofaro Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Alice Zhang; Jaquelyne T Hughes; Alex Brown; Paul D Lawton; Alan Cass; Wendy Hoy; Kerin O'Dea; Louise J Maple-Brown Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Joana M Warnecke; Ju Wang; Tolga Cakir; Nicolai Spicher; Nagarajan Ganapathy; Thomas M Deserno Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 3.240