Why the study?
Heart rate variability is considered a biomarker of well-being, but the clinical meaning of short-term resting-state HRV is not sufficiently defined.
What are the clinical and psychological associations of different resting-state HRV patterns?
What are the clinical and psychological associations of different resting-state HRV patterns?
A four-pattern classification of resting-state HRV provides a convenient, evidence-based method to interpret autonomic function and its clinical associations, particularly for patients with affective disorders.
Heart rate variability (HRV) is often considered as a biomarker reflecting well-being, but the clinical meaning of short-term resting-state HRV is not sufficiently defined. We assume that combining several common HRV indices as "HRV patterns" and using the patterns for screening purposes are meaningful approaches. Resting-state 5-min HRV data of 424 subjects were analyzed. Four of the most commonly used HRV indices were considered: standard deviation of normal-to-normal RR intervals, low-frequency power, high-frequency power and the ratio of low-frequency to high-frequency power. According to these indices, four HRV patterns were defined: normal pattern, low HRV pattern, relatively high sympathetic pattern, and relatively high vagal pattern. The associations between the demographics, lifestyles, personality traits, psychological states, and HRV patterns were explored: the low HRV pattern was positively associated with age, body mass index, and depression; the relatively high sympathetic pattern was positively associated with age and negatively associated with exercise habit; and the relatively high vagal pattern was negatively associated with having a steady job and novelty seeking. The pattern perspective may provide a convenient and evidence-based way to interpret resting-state HRV for patients with affective disorders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: