| Literature DB >> 32947985 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several explanations regarding the disparity observed in the literature with regard to heart rate variability (HRV) and its association with performance parameters have been proposed: the time of day when the recording was conducted, the condition (i.e., rest, active, post activity) and the mathematical and physiological relationships that could have influenced the results. A notable observation about early studies is that they all followed the frequentist approach to data analyses. Therefore, in an attempt to explain the disparity observed in the literature, the primary purpose of this study was to estimate the association between measures of HRV indices, aerobic performance parameters and blood pressure indices using the Bayesian estimation of correlation on simulated data using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and the equal probability of the 95% high density interval (95% HDI).Entities:
Keywords: MCMC; data simulation; mean arterial blood pressure; psychophysiology health; rate-pressure product
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32947985 PMCID: PMC7558932 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17186750
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
The three heart rate variability (HRV) domains.
|
| ||
| SDNN | Standard deviation of all Normal–Normal intervals in a time series | SDNN indicate total variability [ |
| RMSSD | The root mean square of successive differences | RMSSD and pNN50 (%) reflects vagal tone/PNS activities [ |
| pNN50 (%)) | Percent of successive intervals with a difference greater that 50 ms compared to previous interval | |
|
| ||
| HF | High-frequency band (i.e., 0.15 to 0.4 Hz) | HF reflects vagal tone/PNS activities [ |
| LF | Low-frequency (LF) band (i.e., 0.04 and 0.15 Hz) | LF reflects baroreceptor activity at rest (vagal influenced) and SNS activities during stress [ |
| VLF | Very-low-frequency (VLF) band (i.e., 0.0033 to 0.04 Hz) | VLF and ULF reflect long-term thermo- and hormonal regulation mechanisms [ |
| ULF | Ultra-low-frequency (ULF) band (i.e., <0.0033 Hz) | |
|
| ||
| SD1 | Standard descriptor 1 | SD1 reflects fast IBI variability which is a reflection of PNS activities to the heart [ |
| SD2 | Standard descriptor 2 | SD2 reflects the long-term IBI variability, which represents both SNS and PSN activities [ |
Note: Both VLF and ULF physiological explanations are less defined and, therefore, are not usually included in the HRV reporting. PNS = parasympathetic nervous system; SNS = sympathetic nervous system; IBI = inter-beat interval.
A brief review of the literature showing the disparity in the reported results.
| Study (Date) | Focus | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| De Meersman [ | Compared different age groups on both VO2max and HRV (assessed by the percent change in mean HR). |
Results showed that the participants with higher VO2max have a higher value of HRV. |
| Melanson and Freedson [ | Effect of a 12-week endurance training on resting heart rate variability in sedentary adult males. |
Increase in VO2peak, no change in resting HR, increase in RMSSD and pNN50 after 12 weeks of training, but not during, compared to the baseline. No effect on LF (nu) and only the training group had elevated HF power compared to the baseline. No marked correlations were observed between HRV indices and VO2peak except for HRV indices after 16 weeks of training. |
| Catai et al. [ | Effects of aerobic exercise training on heart rate variability during wakefulness and sleep and cardiorespiratory responses of young and middle-aged healthy men. |
Exercise training increased VO2peak in all participants with no marked changes observed in HRV indices. |
| Kouidi et al. [ | Effect of athletic training on time domain HRV indices. |
A relationship between aerobic capacity and time domain HRV indices on athletes training in the long-distance group but not on athletes from the sprint track group, the field weight events group and the control group. They concluded that HRV modulation depends on the exercise training pattern. |
| Marocolo et al. [ | Effect of aerobic training program on the electrical remodeling of heart high-frequency components. |
Positive correlation between HRV indices and VO2max; however, the root mean squared voltage of total (a variable from the signal-averaged ECG) was the only independent predictor of VO2max. |
| Schmitt et al. [ | Altitude, heart rate variability and aerobic capacities. |
No relationship between changes in HRV and VO2max. The increase in VO2 and power at the respiratory compensation point was accompanied by decreased PNS activities. The changes in HRV parameters and the changes in VO2 and power at the respiratory compensation point had a statistically significant relationship. |
| Grant et al. [ | Relationship between exercise capacity and heart rate variability. |
Relationship between VO2max and HRV indices showed different results in relation to measuring position. LF (nu) and LF/HF correlated with VO2max when HRV was recorded in the supine resting position. RMSSD, pNN50, SD1, LF (nu), HF (ms2) and LF/HF were correlated with VO2max when HRV was recorded in a standing position. |
| Leite et al. [ | Correlation between heart rate variability indexes and aerobic physiological variables. |
A moderate but statistically significant relationship between HRV and aerobic capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. |
| Flatt and Esco [ | Evaluating individual raining adaptation with smartphone-derived heart rate variability in a collegiate female soccer team. |
A statistically significant large relationship between change in RMSSD (expressed as a coefficient of variation) and Yo-Yo IR1 test performance. No statistically significant relationship was observed between mean change of RMSSD and Yo-Yo IR1 test performance. |
| Flatt et al. [ | Individual heart rate variability responses to preseason training in high level female soccer players. |
Inverse, very large, relationship between mean weekly changes in RMSSD and changes in daily and weekly training loads. Positive and large relationship between mean weekly changes in RMSSD and both fatigue and soreness. |
| Materko [ | Stratification of the level of aerobic fitness based on heart rate variability parameters in adult males at rest. |
The group with higher VO2max also had higher HRV. Only pNN50 was among the HRV indices, together with Cardiac-Deceleration Rate, that was able to predict VO2max |
| Materko et al. [ | Maximum oxygen uptake prediction model based on heart rate variability parameters. |
Small to moderate relationship between measures of HRV indices (i.e., RMSSD, pNN50, HF and LF/HF) and VO2max Only pNN50 was among the HRV indices, together with mean HR and Cardiac-Deceleration Rate, that was able to predict VO2max |
| Phoemsapthawee et al. [ | Clarifying the casual link between body composition, aerobic fitness and the alterations in cardiac autonomic modulation after a 12-week exercise training. |
Improvement in VO2peak after the training period in the exercise group. Increased PNS indices and reduced SNS indices at rest. Statistically significant relationship between changes in VO2peak and HRV indices. Only SD1/SD2 ratio gave a statistically significant explanation for the changes in VO2peak |
VO2peak, VO2max = highest rate of oxygen consumption measured during incremental exercise.
Identification and deletion of the artefact based on the last 6 recorded minutes and the number of the final data points used in HRV analysis.
| Based on the Last 6 min | Based on 5 min | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participant Number | Total Data Point | Artifact | Percentage | Total Data Point Analyzed |
| P. 1 | 392 | 17 | 4.3 | 333 |
| P. 2 | 445 | 0 | 0.0 | 369 |
| P. 3 | 434 | 0 | 0.0 | 363 |
| P. 4 | 396 | 1 | 0.3 | 329 |
| P. 5 | 457 | 4 | 0.9 | 383 |
| P. 6 | 391 | 2 | 0.5 | 324 |
| P. 7 | 420 | 0 | 0.0 | 349 |
| P. 8 | 369 | 2 | 0.5 | 309 |
Bayesian estimated mean and SD ± HDI, Shapiro–Wilk’s test, Skewness and Kurtosis of the raw data.
| Variable | Mean ± (95% HDI) | SD ± (95% HDI) | Shapiro–Wilk’s Test (Sig.) | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean HR (bpm) | 69.3 (65.5–73.1) | 4.93 (3.11–8.78) | 0.870 | 0.17 | −1.14 |
| Min HR (bpm) | 64.5 (61.3–67.5) | 3.91 (2.46–7.06) | 0.811 | −0.11 | −1.08 |
| Max HR (bpm) | 76 (71.2–81) | 6.13 (4.01–11.3) | 0.979 | 0.00 | 0.92 |
| MeanRR (ms) | 873 (824–924) | 58.7 (40.1–111) | 0.896 | 0.06 | −1.09 |
| SDNN (ms) | 28.9 (20.4–37.1) | 9.93 (6.59–18.5) | 0.911 | 0.24 | −0.22 |
| RMSSD (ms) | 23.8 (17.4–30.8) | 8.17 (5.23–14.8) | 0.185 | 0.09 | −2.18 |
| pNN50 (%) | 5.34 (1.11–9.51) | 5.22 (3.39–9.48) | 0.132 | 0.49 | −1.64 |
| HF (ms2) | 179 (92.2–273) | 110 (73.2–205) | 0.677 | 0.56 | −0.73 |
| LF (ms2) | 696 (244–1150) | 552 (354–1010) | 0.255 | 1.36 | 2.34 |
| HF (n.u) | 28.2 (13.1–42.9) | 18.6 (11.6–33.1) | 0.158 | 1.22 | 1.65 |
| LF (n.u) | 71.7 (57.5–87.2) | 17.7 (11.8–33.5) | 0.170 | −1.19 | 1.57 |
| SD1 | 17 (12.3–21.8) | 5.68 (3.84–10.7) | 0.181 | 0.09 | −2.19 |
| SD2 | 36.6 (25.6–48) | 13.5 (8.81–25.1) | 0.734 | 0.29 | 0.35 |
| RPP (mmHg/min) | 9330 (8210–10,400) | 1320 (893–2480) | 0.333 | 0.83 | 1.05 |
| MAP (mmHg) | 94.4 (88.6–99.9) | 6.98 (4.48–12.5) | 0.090 | 1.52 | 2.30 |
| VO2peak−67 | 123 (105–140) | 21.2 (13.6–38.6) | 0.167 | 0.37 | −1.75 |
| RER | 1.13 (1.06–1.19) | 0.08 (0.05–0.15) | 0.920 | −0.00 | −1.02 |
| BPM | 41.5 (34.4–48.4) | 8.49 (5.7–15.9) | 0.047 * (Nor. 0.097) | 1.26 (Nor. 1.10) | 0.28 (Nor. −0.18) |
| HRmax (bpm) | 170 (165–176) | 6.29 (4.17–11.7) | 0.791 | −0.01 | 1.01 |
| Time to exhaustion (s) | 842 (718–956) | 140 (91.3–261) | 0.192 | −0.89 | 0.19 |
MeanRR = average time for successive heart beats; SDNN = standard deviation of all Normal–Normal intervals; RMSSD = root mean square of SDs between successive N–N intervals; pNN50 = percent of successive intervals with a difference greater that 50 ms compared to previous interval; HF = high frequency; LF = low frequency; SD1 = standard descriptor 1; SD2 = standard descriptor 2; RPP = rate-pressure product; MAP = mean arterial blood pressure; RER = respiratory exchange ratio; BPM = breaths per minute; HRmax = maximum heartrate during exercise; Nor. = calculation after transforming the data that were not observed to follow normality; HDI = high density interval; * = p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 1Example of representativeness and accuracy checks by examining the convergence of the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm (the figure describes the convergence diagnostics for the variable MAP).
Correlation matrix between HRV measures from time domain, frequency domain and nonlinear domain.
| Variable | HF (ms2) | LF (ms2) | HF (n.u) | LF (n.u) | SD1 | SD2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MeanRR (ms) |
| 0.357 | −0.465 | 0.324 | −0.332 | 0.231 | −0.393 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.793 | 0.284 | 0.802 | 0.394 | 0.799 | 0.32 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | −0.378 | −0.85 | −0.392 | −0.803 | −0.397 | −0.824 | |
| SDNN (ms) |
| 0.651 | 0.9 | −0.702 | 0.653 | 0.765 | 0.918 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.923 | 0.982 | −0.074 | 0.932 | 0.954 | 0.987 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | 0.041 | 0.568 | −0.937 | 0.065 | 0.235 | 0.654 | |
| RMSSD (ms) |
| 0.9 | 0.716 | −0.177 | 0.269 | 0.92 | 0.721 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.982 | 0.943 | 0.464 | 0.767 | 0.987 | 0.947 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | 0.567 | 0.093 | −0.752 | −0.464 | 0.665 | 0.141 | |
| pNN50 (%) |
| 0.896 | 0.749 | −0.307 | 0.282 | 0.907 | 0.785 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.984 | 0.946 | 0.42 | 0.778 | 0.98 | 0.953 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | 0.574 | 0.146 | −0.781 | −0.416 | 0.588 | 0.23 | |
| SD1 |
| 0.895 | 0.691 | −0.146 | 0.179 | ||
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.982 | 0.94 | 0.483 | 0.724 | |||
| Lower 95% HDI | 0.582 | 0.1 | −0.742 | −0.507 | |||
| SD2 |
| 0.605 | 0.893 | −0.731 | 0.724 | ||
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.901 | 0.98 | −0.137 | 0.942 | |||
| Lower 95% HDI | −0.083 | 0.575 | −0.94 | 0.135 |
Correlation matrix between HRV measures from time domain, frequency domain and nonlinear domain.
| Variable | RPP | MAP | PeakVO2 | BPM | HRmax | Time | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MeanRR (ms) |
| −0.68 | 0.134 | 0.44 | 0.050 | −0.144 | 0.464 |
| Upper 95% HDI | −0.064 | 0.676 | 0.858 | 0.655 | 0.563 | 0.853 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | −0.935 | −0.564 | −0.251 | −0.601 | −0.682 | −0.249 | |
| SDNN (ms) |
| 0.672 | 0.578 | 0.132 | −0.195 | 0.488 | −0.398 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.918 | 0.89 | 0.724 | 0.423 | 0.863 | 0.344 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | 0.001 | −0.12 | −0.521 | −0.778 | −0.216 | −0.819 | |
| RMSSD (ms) |
| 0.366 | 0.605 | 0.419 | −0.209 | 0.668 | −0.221 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.83 | 0.912 | 0.843 | 0.488 | 0.91 | 0.415 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | −0.319 | −0.058 | −0.278 | −0.737 | −0.044 | −0.788 | |
| pNN50 (%) |
| 0.376 | 0.671 | 0.423 | −0.237 | 0.629 | −0.37 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.827 | 0.928 | 0.833 | 0.432 | 0.907 | 0.36 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | −0.31 | 0.004 | −0.323 | −0.765 | −0.056 | −0.805 | |
| HF (ms2) |
| 0.303 | 0.639 | 0.461 | −0.153 | 0.626 | −0.295 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.782 | 0.924 | 0.858 | 0.481 | 0.917 | 0.412 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | −0.426 | −0.017 | −0.257 | −0.74 | −0.06 | −0.787 | |
| LF (ms2) |
| 0.733 | 0.629 | 0.031 | −0.227 | 0.41 | −0.323 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.935 | 0.904 | 0.624 | 0.434 | 0.819 | 0.371 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | 0.118 | −0.095 | −0.624 | −0.772 | −0.328 | −0.81 | |
| HF (n.u) |
| −0.346 | −0.177 | −0.157 | −0.061 | −0.089 | −0.023 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.388 | 0.477 | 0.496 | 0.641 | 0.558 | 0.613 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | −0.8 | −0.757 | −0.729 | −0.615 | −0.702 | −0.647 | |
| LF (n.u) |
| 0.345 | 0.246 | 0.16 | 0.011 | 0.064 | −0.009 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.804 | 0.748 | 0.719 | 0.633 | 0.683 | 0.616 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | −0.379 | −0.471 | −0.528 | −0.624 | −0.559 | −0.638 | |
| SD1 |
| 0.362 | 0.599 | 0.473 | −0.217 | 0.652 | −0.303 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.825 | 0.909 | 0.856 | 0.497 | 0.916 | 0.426 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | −0.344 | −0.064 | −0.28 | −0.747 | −0.055 | −0.782 | |
| SD2 |
| 0.692 | 0.551 | 0.078 | −0.242 | 0.481 | −0.403 |
| Upper 95% HDI | 0.939 | 0.906 | 0.672 | 0.42 | 0.852 | 0.326 | |
| Lower 95% HDI | 0.055 | −0.134 | −0.578 | −0.785 | −0.265 | −0.824 |
Figure 2The probability of association between MeanRR and RPP (A), SDNN (ms) and RPP (B), pNN50 and MAP (C), LF (ms2) and RPP (D), SD2 and RPP (E).