Key result
HRVT2 shows strong agreement with VT2 for oxygen uptake in chronic heart failure.
Why the study?
Validating HRV-based thresholds could offer a cost-effective alternative to ventilatory thresholds for individualized exercise intensity prescription in chronic heart failure cardiac rehabilitation.
Does heart rate variability threshold analysis accurately estimate ventilatory thresholds in patients with chronic heart failure?
Observational (n=20)
No
Does heart rate variability threshold analysis accurately estimate ventilatory thresholds in patients with chronic heart failure?
Effect estimate: ICC 0.86 (95% CI 0.69-0.94)
p-value: p=<0.01
In patients with chronic heart failure, the second heart rate variability threshold (HRVT2) is a valid surrogate for the second ventilatory threshold (VT2), offering a practical alternative for personalized exercise prescription when full CPET is unavailable.
May support HRVT2-guided exercise prescription in CHF when CPET unavailable; leaves open prospective outcome validation.
Purpose This study aimed to assess the agreement between ventilatory thresholds (VT1 and VT2), and heart rate variability (HRV) thresholds (HRVT1 and HRVT2) based on the alpha 1 index of detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA a1) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Validating HRV-based thresholds could provide a cost-effective alternative for individualised exercise intensity prescription, improving safety and efficacy in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes. Methods Twenty CHF patients (13 males, 7 females) performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) on a cycle ergometer. Ventilatory thresholds were identified using a mixed method, while HRV thresholds were determined at DFA a1 values of 0.75 (HRVT1) and 0.5 (HRVT2). Threshold values for oxygen consumption (VO 2 ), heart rate (HR), and power output (PO) were compared with paired t test or Wilcoxon test. Agreement was assessed using correlation coefficients (Pearson’s r and Spearman’s rho ), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland–Altman analysis. Results HRVT2 showed moderate-to-strong associations with VT2 for VO 2 ( rho = 0.88, ICC = 0.86), for HR ( r = 0.88, ICC = 0.81) and for PO ( r = 0.82, ICC = 0.85). Mean biases were small and limits of agreement (LoA) narrow. HRVT1 correlated only modestly with VT1 for VO 2 ( rho = 0.67, ICC = 0.43) and weakly for HR ( r = 0.43, ICC = 0.37) and PO ( r = 0.49, ICC = 0.35), with wide LoA. Conclusion In CHF patients, HRVT2 appears to be a valid, practical surrogate for VT2 and may facilitate personalised intensity prescription where full CPET is unavailable. HRVT1 showed insufficient agreement with VT1 and should be used with caution. Larger cohorts and protocol refinements are warranted to confirm these observations and to explore strategies for improving HRVT1 accuracy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sempere-Ruiz et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Chronic heart failure (n=20). Heart rate variability thresholds (HRVT1 and HRVT2) vs. Ventilatory thresholds (VT1 and VT2) was evaluated on Agreement between HRVT2 and VT2 for oxygen uptake (VO2) (ICC 0.86, 95% CI 0.69-0.94, p=<0.01). In patients with chronic heart failure, the second heart rate variability threshold (HRVT2) showed strong agreement with the second ventilatory threshold (VT2) for oxygen uptake (ICC 0.86).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: