Why the study?
CHF is associated with autonomic nervous system dysfunction, motivating a new HRV analysis method to assess the complexity of autonomic fluctuations within 24 h.
Does the fApEn_IBS index improve the accuracy of congestive heart failure screening compared to classical HRV indices?
Does the fApEn_IBS index improve the accuracy of congestive heart failure screening compared to classical HRV indices?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The novel fApEn_IBS index significantly improves the performance of congestive heart failure screening using 24-hour ECG records compared to classical HRV indices.
Congestive heart failure (CHF) is a chronic cardiovascular condition associated with dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system (ANS). Heart rate variability (HRV) has been widely used to assess ANS. This paper proposes a new HRV analysis method, which uses information-based similarity (IBS) transformation and fuzzy approximate entropy (fApEn) algorithm to obtain the fApEn_IBS index, which is used to observe the complexity of autonomic fluctuations in CHF within 24 h. We used 98 ECG records (54 health records and 44 CHF records) from the PhysioNet database. The fApEn_IBS index was statistically significant between the control and CHF groups (p < 0.001). Compared with the classical indices low-to-high frequency power ratio (LF/HF) and IBS, the fApEn_IBS index further utilizes the changes in the rhythm of heart rate (HR) fluctuations between RR intervals to fully extract relevant information between adjacent time intervals and significantly improves the performance of CHF screening. The CHF classification accuracy of fApEn_IBS was 84.69%, higher than LF/HF (77.55%) and IBS (83.67%). Moreover, the combination of IBS, fApEn_IBS, and LF/HF reached the highest CHF screening accuracy (98.98%) with the random forest (RF) classifier, indicating that the IBS and LF/HF had good complementarity. Therefore, fApEn_IBS effusively reflects the complexity of autonomic nerves in CHF and is a valuable CHF assessment tool.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: