Variation in the time interval between consecutive R wave peaks of the QRS complex has long been recognised. Measurement of this RR interval is used to derive heart rate variability. Heart rate variability is thought to reflect modulation of automaticity of the sinus node by the sympathetic and parasympathetic components of the autonomic nervous system. The clinical application of heart rate variability in determining prognosis post myocardial infarction and the risk of sudden cardiac death is well recognised. More recently, analysis of heart rate variability has found utility in predicting foetal deterioration, deterioration due to sepsis and impending multiorgan dysfunction syndrome in critically unwell adults. Moreover, reductions in heart rate variability have been associated with increased mortality in patients admitted to the intensive care unit. It is hypothesised that heart rate variability reflects and quantifies the neural regulation of organ systems such as the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. In disease states, it is thought that there is an ‘uncoupling’ of organ systems, leading to alterations in ‘inter-organ communication’ and a clinically detectable reduction in heart rate variability. Despite the increasing evidence of the utility of measuring heart rate variability, there remains debate as to the methodology that best represents clinically relevant outcomes. With continuing advances in technology, our understanding of the physiology responsible for heart rate variability evolves. In this article, we review the current understanding of the physiological basis of heart rate variability and the methods available for its measurement. Finally, we review the emerging use of heart rate variability analysis in intensive care medicine and conditions in which heart rate variability has shown promise as a potential physiomarker of disease.

Objective Augmented renal clearance (ARC) is associated with sub-therapeutic antibiotic, anti-epileptic, and anticoagulant serum concentrations leading to adverse patient outcomes. We aimed to describe the prevalence and associated risk factors for ARC development in a large, single-centre cohort in the United Kingdom. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study of critically unwell patients admitted to intensive care between 2014 and 2016. Urinary creatinine clearance was used to determine the ARC prevalence during the first 7 days of admission. Repeated measures logistic regression was used to determine risk factors for ARC development. Results The ARC prevalence was 47.0% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 44.3%–49.7%). Age, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and sepsis diagnosis were significantly associated with ARC. ARC was more prevalent in younger vs. older (odds ratio [OR] 0.95 [95%CI: 0.94–0.96]), male vs. female (OR 0.32 [95%CI: 0.26–0.40]) patients with lower vs. higher APACHE II scores (OR 0.94 [95%CI: 0.92–0.96]). Conclusions This patient group probably remains unknown to many clinicians because measuring urinary creatinine clearance is not usually indicated in this group. Clinicians should be aware of the ARC risk in this group and consider measurement of urinary creatinine clearance.

No abstract