Why the study?
Autonomic nervous system function, measured noninvasively by heart rate variability, may be altered after traumatic brain injury, but existing literature on these changes and their association with outcomes needed summarization.
How does heart rate variability change after traumatic brain injury, and is it associated with clinical outcomes?
How does heart rate variability change after traumatic brain injury, and is it associated with clinical outcomes?
HRV is a potential noninvasive measure of autonomic nervous system function after TBI, but standardized measurement protocols are needed for future research.
HRV changes after TBI may associate with outcomes; leaves open whether monitoring improves prognosis or management.
BACKGROUND: Heart rate variability (HRV), defined as the variability between successive heart beats, is a noninvasive measure of autonomic nervous system (ANS) function, which may be altered following traumatic brain injury (TBI). This scoping review summarizes the existing literature regarding changes in HRV after TBI as well as the association between measures of HRV and outcomes following TBI. METHODS: A literature search for articles assessing 'heart rate variability' and 'brain injury' or 'concussion' was completed. Articles were included if HRV was measured in human subjects with TBI or concussion. Review articles, protocol papers, and studies including non-traumatic injuries were excluded. RESULTS: Sixty-three articles were included in this review. Varied methods were used to measure HRV in the different studies. Forty articles included information about differences in HRV measures after TBI and/or longitudinal changes after TBI. Fifteen studies assessed HRV and symptoms following TBI, and 15 studies assessed HRV and either functional or cognitive outcomes after TBI. CONCLUSIONS: HRV has been studied in the context of mortality, clinical symptoms, and medical, functional, or cognitive outcomes following TBI. Methods used to measure HRV have varied amongst the different studies, which may impact findings, standardized protocols are needed for future research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pinto et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: