Is the algorithm used to process heart rate variability data clinically relevant? Analysis in male adolescents

Abstract

Objective To analyze whether the algorithm used for the heart rate variability assessment (fast Fourier transform versus autoregressive methods) influenced its association with cardiovascular risk factors in male adolescents.Methods This cross-sectional study included 1,152 male adolescents (aged 14 to 19 years). The low frequency, high frequency components (absolute numbers and normalized units), low frequency/high frequency ratio, and total power of heart rate variability parameters were obtained using the fast Fourier transform and autoregressive methods, while the adolescents were resting in a supine position.Results All heart rate variability parameters calculated from both methods were different (p<0.05). However, a low effect size (<0.1) was found for all parameters. The intra-class correlation between methods ranged from 0.96 to 0.99, whereas the variation coefficient ranged from 7.4 to 14.8%. Furthermore, waist circumference was negatively associated with high frequency, and positively associated with low frequency and sympatovagal balance (p<0.001 for both fast Fourier transform and autoregressive methods in all associations). Systolic blood pressure was negatively associated with total power and high frequency, whereas it was positively associated with low frequency and sympatovagal balance (p<0.001 for both fast Fourier transform and autoregressive methods in all associations). Body mass index was negatively associated with high frequency, while it was positively associated with low frequency and sympatovagal balance (p values ranged from <0.001 to 0.007).Conclusion There are significant differences in heart rate variability parameters obtained with the fast Fourier transform and autoregressive methods in male adolescent; however, these differences are not clinically significant.

Association between Metabolic Syndrome Components and Cardiac Autonomic Modulation among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Among these, only eight studies were association studies and were published between 2012 to 2020. Regions of publications were from South America ( n = 5), all from Brazil [ 16 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]; North America ( n = 2), including Pennsylvania ( n = 1) [ 17 ] and Tennessee ( n = 1) [ 29 ]; Asia ( n = 1), including only Mainland China ( n = 1) [ 20 ]; Europe ( n = 5) including Finland ( n = 1) [ 19 ], Greece ( n = 1) [ 30 ], Spain ( n = 1) [ 31 ] and Holland ( n = 1) [ 32 ], and from Africa ( n = 1), including only South Africa [ 18 ]. Sample size per association study ranged from 39 to 1152, with a total of 3745 subjects.…”

“…For SBP, five studies showed significant negative associations with HF [ 16 , 19 , 20 , 27 , 28 ]. Three studies showed significant negative associations with SDNN and rMSSD [ 16 , 19 , 20 ].…”

“…Three studies showed significant positive associations with the LF/HF ratio [ 6 , 16 , 20 ]. On the other hand, two studies [ 16 , 27 ] showed significant positive and two studies [ 19 , 20 ] reported negative significant associations with LF.…”

“…For WC, four studies reported significant positive associations with LF/HF [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 27 ]. Three studies [ 17 , 18 , 27 ] reported significant negative associations and one study [ 16 ] reported a positive association with HF.…”

Effects of Non-Focused Elf-Emf Treatment on Hrv: Preliminary Study

“…HRV was measured using the HeartMath® EmWave® Pro device [45][46][47], which measures HRV with an ear sensor and returns a variability value in real time generated by a hardware/software system (EmWave Pro desktop). The software uses the HRV measurement as a basis to establish a coherence score, calculated as a ratio between the low frequency component of the HRV (00.4-0.15 Hz) divided by the sum of the high frequency (0.15-0.4 Hz) and very low frequency (0.01\0.04 Hz) [34].…”