Jeffrey J Goldberger1, Nils P Johnson2, Haris Subacius3, Jason Ng3, Philip Greenland4. 1. Center for Cardiovascular Innovation and the Division of Cardiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: j-goldberger@northwestern.edu. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing and Reversing Atherosclerosis, University of Texas Medical School and Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas. 3. Center for Cardiovascular Innovation and the Division of Cardiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart rate (HR) and RR interval are inversely related. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine which parameter better describes the autonomic changes that occur after exercise and which provides stronger prognostic significance. METHODS: Healthy volunteers (n = 33) underwent sequential bicycle exercise tests with selective autonomic blockade during exercise to define HR and RR interval changes in recovery due to parasympathetic effect, sympathetic effect, and sympathetic-parasympathetic interaction. The prognostic significance of resting HR and RR interval was assessed in a cohort study (n = 33,781). The prognostic significance of exercise HR and RR interval and 1-minute HR and RR interval recovery was assessed in patients referred for exercise testing (n = 2387). RESULTS: Parasympathetic effect on HR and RR interval both increased in recovery (P < .001), while the sympathetic effect on HR declined (P < .001) and the sympathetic effect on the RR interval paradoxically increased. Significant sympathetic-parasympathetic interaction was noted with the HR analysis but not with the RR interval. Resting HR and RR interval had similar prognostic implications by age and gender. While resting and exercise HR and RR interval had similar prognostic implications, 1-minute HR recovery was a multivariate predictor of mortality (HR 0.81; 95%CI 0.69-0.95), while 1-minute RR interval recovery was not. CONCLUSION: Based on these findings, HR (and its changes) is not necessarily interchangeable with the RR interval (and its changes) in either physiologic or prognostic studies. It is important to consider underlying physiologic constraints and identify wisely which parameter (or even other transformation of these parameters) is most suitable for a given analysis.
BACKGROUND: Heart rate (HR) and RR interval are inversely related. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine which parameter better describes the autonomic changes that occur after exercise and which provides stronger prognostic significance. METHODS: Healthy volunteers (n = 33) underwent sequential bicycle exercise tests with selective autonomic blockade during exercise to define HR and RR interval changes in recovery due to parasympathetic effect, sympathetic effect, and sympathetic-parasympathetic interaction. The prognostic significance of resting HR and RR interval was assessed in a cohort study (n = 33,781). The prognostic significance of exercise HR and RR interval and 1-minute HR and RR interval recovery was assessed in patients referred for exercise testing (n = 2387). RESULTS: Parasympathetic effect on HR and RR interval both increased in recovery (P < .001), while the sympathetic effect on HR declined (P < .001) and the sympathetic effect on the RR interval paradoxically increased. Significant sympathetic-parasympathetic interaction was noted with the HR analysis but not with the RR interval. Resting HR and RR interval had similar prognostic implications by age and gender. While resting and exercise HR and RR interval had similar prognostic implications, 1-minute HR recovery was a multivariate predictor of mortality (HR 0.81; 95%CI 0.69-0.95), while 1-minute RR interval recovery was not. CONCLUSION: Based on these findings, HR (and its changes) is not necessarily interchangeable with the RR interval (and its changes) in either physiologic or prognostic studies. It is important to consider underlying physiologic constraints and identify wisely which parameter (or even other transformation of these parameters) is most suitable for a given analysis.
Authors: P Greenland; M L Daviglus; A R Dyer; K Liu; C F Huang; J J Goldberger; J Stamler Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1999-05-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Marcelle Paula-Ribeiro; Indyanara C Ribeiro; Liliane C Aranda; Talita M Silva; Camila M Costa; Roberta P Ramos; Jaquelina S Ota-Arakaki; Sergio L Cravo; Luiz E Nery; Michael K Stickland; Bruno M Silva Journal: J Physiol Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Agustín Manresa-Rocamora; Fernando Ribeiro; José Manuel Sarabia; Javier Íbias; Nórton Luís Oliveira; Francisco José Vera-García; Manuel Moya-Ramón Journal: Clin Auton Res Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 4.435
Authors: Rhenan Bartels; Eliza Prodel; Mateus C Laterza; Jorge Roberto P de Lima; Tiago Peçanha Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Francesco Giallauria; Giuseppe Vitale; Mario Pacileo; Anna Di Lorenzo; Alessandro Oliviero; Francesco Passaro; Roberta Calce; Alessandro Parlato; Crescenzo Testa; Giuseppe D'Ambrosio; Giuseppe Romano; Francesco Clemenza; Silvia Sarullo; Elio Venturini; Marco Gentile; Cinzia Nugara; Gabriella Iannuzzo; Antonello D'Andrea; Carlo Vigorito; Filippo M Sarullo Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 4.964