Why the study?
Does heart rate variability analysis predict ischemic stroke risk in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation?
Does heart rate variability analysis predict ischemic stroke risk in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation?
The probability density function structure of HRV time series at scales greater than 2 seconds is associated with ischemic stroke risk in patients with permanent AFib, potentially improving stroke risk assessment.
May enhance stroke risk stratification in permanent AF using HRV; leaves open prospective validation beyond standard scores.
Multiscale entropy (MSE) profiles of heart rate variability (HRV) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) provides clinically useful information for ischemic stroke risk assessment, suggesting that the complex properties characterized by MSE profiles are associated with ischemic stroke risk. However, the meaning of HRV complexity in patients with AFib has not been clearly interpreted, and the physical and mathematical understanding of the relation between HRV dynamics and the ischemic stroke risk is not well established. To gain a deeper insight into HRV dynamics in patients with AFib, and to improve ischemic stroke risk assessment using HRV analysis, we study the HRV characteristics related to MSE profiles, such as the long-range correlation and probability density function. In this study, we analyze the HRV time series of 173 patients with permanent AFib. Our results show that, although HRV time series in patients with AFib exhibit long-range correlation (1/f fluctuations)—as observed in healthy subjects—in a range longer than 90 s, these autocorrelation properties have no significant predictive power for ischemic stroke occurrence. Further, the probability density function structure of the coarse-grained times series at scales greater than 2 s is dominantly associated with ischemic stroke risk. This observation could provide valuable information for improving ischemic stroke risk assessment using HRV analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matsuoka et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: