Why the study?
Echocardiography provides only a once-off LVEF measurement without circadian information and struggles to differentiate HFpEF from mid-range ejection fraction.
Can heart rate variability (HRV) analysis accurately categorize coronary artery disease patients with heart failure into LVEF groups compared to echocardiography?
Observational (n=92)
Can heart rate variability (HRV) analysis accurately categorize coronary artery disease patients with heart failure into LVEF groups compared to echocardiography?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Heart rate variability analysis may serve as a promising supplementary tool to echocardiography for continuous LVEF estimation and heart failure prognosis.
Analysis of heart failure is important in clinical practice to ensure coronary artery disease (CAD) patients will be provided with appropriate timely treatment. The current gold-standard, echocardiography, although reliable, provides a once-off left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measurement and does not provide information about heart function disturbances during day / night cardiac cycles. Additionally, the discrimination between heart failure with preserved and mid-range ejection fraction remains challenging in echocardiography tests. In this vein, this study was sought to investigate the ability of heart rate variability (HRV) in categorizing CAD patients into multiple LVEF groups throughout the 24-hour circadian cycle and checking its agreement with established gold-standard echocardiography-based guidelines. A total of 92 CAD patients who have suffered from heart failure were included in this study. The newly introduced index, HRV ejection fraction (HRVEF), was based on optimizing indices extracted from HRV data, which are correlated with the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, to form group membership of the preserved (HFpEF), mid-range (HFmEF), and reduced (HFrEF) LVEF categories. HRVEF groups optimized on hourly basis through Jenks natural breaks algorithm exhibited a consistent pattern with a goodness of variance fit (GVF) of more than 70% accuracy during the late-night to early-morning (01:00-08:00) and evening (17:00-23:00) time periods. At these hours, several HRV indices were found significant (p-value ≤ 0.05) in differentiating between HRVEF groups using statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. These features include the successive differences between normal heartbeats (RMSSD), low and high frequency (LF, HF) power, standard deviation of normal heartbeats (SD2), short-term scaling exponent (alpha1), and percentage of normal heartbeats in alternation segments (PAS). The findings of this study suggest HRV as a promising supplementary tool to the once-off echocardiography for timely LVEF measurements and heart failure prognosis. It paves the way towards multi-time HRV-based estimations for LVEF according to the association between LVEF and HRV indices to better demonstrate the circadian cardiac function at different LVEF levels in CAD patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alkhodari et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease with heart failure (n=92). Heart rate variability (HRV) indices vs. Echocardiography-based LVEF categories was evaluated on Categorization into preserved (HFpEF), mid-range (HFmEF), and reduced (HFrEF) LVEF categories (GVF > 70% accuracy, p=≤ 0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: