Why the study?
To test whether the sequence method quantifies causal interactions of spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity at rest, or is solely dominated by heart rate variability and systolic blood pressure variability.
Does the sequence method (SME) accurately quantify causal interactions of spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity at rest?
Does the sequence method (SME) accurately quantify causal interactions of spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity at rest?
The sequence method for quantifying spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity at rest has a large methodological bias, primarily reflecting the heart rate to blood pressure variability ratio rather than causal interactions.
SME at rest likely reflects HRV/BPV ratio rather than causal BRS; leaves open its validity for spontaneous baroreflex assessment pending prospective validation.
In order to quantify spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) many groups use the sequence method (SME). In this paper we test the hypothesis that SME is quantifying causal interactions of spontaneous BRS at rest rather than, alternatively, being solely dominated by heart rate variability (HRV) and/or systolic blood pressure variability (BPV). Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed 1828 beat-to-beat time series and their corresponding systolic blood pressure during resting conditions. We found a high correlation between short-term HRV and the SME of baroreflex sensitivity of r = 0.85 ( p < 0.001). The correlation is even higher between SME and the root mean square ratio of HRV and BPV ( r = 0.93, p < 0.001). Surrogate analyses revealed that SME is not able to quantify causal relationships between both signals, it cannot differentiate between random and baroreflex driven sequences, and rather determines the HRV-BPV variability ratio. We conclude that SME has a potentially large methodological bias in the characterization of the capacity of the arterial baroreflex during resting conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wessel et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: