Heart rate variability analysis accurately estimated ventilatory thresholds compared to classical respiratory methods during an incremental running test (R2=0.94 for VT1, R2=0.96 for VT2; p<0.001).
Observational (n=12)
Does heart rate variability analysis accurately determine ventilatory thresholds compared to classical respiratory measurements in professional soccer players during an incremental running test?
Heart rate variability analysis provides an accurate and less complex method for estimating ventilatory thresholds during incremental running tests compared to classical respiratory measurements.
Effect estimate: R2 = 0.94 (VT1) and 0.96 (VT2)
p-value: p=< 0.001
The present study examined whether the ventilatory thresholds during an incremental exhaustive running test could be determined using heart rate variability (HRV) analysis. Beat-to-beat RR interval, V(.-)O (2), V(.-)CO (2) and V(.-) (E) of twelve professional soccer players were collected during an incremental test performed on a track until exhaustion. The "smoothed pseudo Wigner-Ville distribution" (SPWVD) time-frequency analysis method was applied to the RR time series to compute the usual HRV components vs. running speed stages. The ventilatory equivalent method was used to assess the ventilatory thresholds (VT1 and VT2) from respiratory components. In addition, ventilatory thresholds were assessed from the instantaneous components of respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) by two different methods: 1) from the high frequency peak of HRV ( FHF), and 2) from the product of the spectral power contained within the high frequency band (0.15 Hz to fmax) by FHF (HF x FHF) giving two thresholds: HFT1 and HFT2. Since the relationship between FHF and running speed was linear for all subjects, the VTs could not be determined from FHF. No significant differences were found between respective running speeds at VT1 vs. HFT1 (9.83 +/- 1.12 vs. 10.08 +/- 1.29 km x h (-1), n.s.) nor between the respective running speeds at VT2 vs. HFT2 (12.55 +/- 1.31 vs. 12.58 +/- 1.33 km x h (-1), n.s.). Linear regression analysis showed a strong correlation between VT1 vs. HFT1 (R (2) = 0.94, p < 0.001) and VT2 vs. HFT2 (R (2) = 0.96, p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman plot analysis reveals that the assessment from RSA gives an accurate estimation of the VTs, with HF x FHF providing a reliable index for the ventilatory thresholds detection. This study has shown that VTs could be assessed during an incremental running test performed on a track using a simple beat-to-beat heart rate monitor, which is less expensive and complex than the classical respiratory measurement devices.
Cottin et al. (Sun,) conducted a observational in Professional soccer players (n=12). Heart rate variability (HRV) analysis vs. Ventilatory equivalent method (respiratory components) was evaluated on Correlation between ventilatory thresholds assessed by respiratory components (VT1/VT2) and HRV (HFT1/HFT2) (R2 = 0.94 (VT1) and 0.96 (VT2), p=< 0.001). Heart rate variability analysis accurately estimated ventilatory thresholds compared to classical respiratory methods during an incremental running test (R2=0.94 for VT1, R2=0.96 for VT2; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: