Key result
The whole-band average BRS method increased measurability in MI and CHF patients compared to the classical coherence criterion (43% and 49% respectively), despite a negative bias versus Phe-BRS.
Why the study?
Does the WBA-BRS method improve the measurability of baroreflex sensitivity compared to the classical coherence criterion, and how does it agree with the phenylephrine test in normal subjects, MI patients, and CHF patients?
Population
108 subjects: 19 normal subjects, 44 patients with a history of previous myocardial infarction, and 45…
Comparison
Whole-band average BRS method. vs Classical coherence criterion and phenylephrine…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
May increase BRS measurability in MI and CHF; leaves open validation against Phe-BRS before clinical adoption.
Cross-Sectional (n=108)
Does the WBA-BRS method improve the measurability of baroreflex sensitivity compared to the classical coherence criterion, and how does it agree with the phenylephrine test in normal subjects, MI patients, and CHF patients?
The WBA-BRS method standardizes baroreflex sensitivity computation and dramatically increases measurability in patients with cardiac pathology compared to classical coherence-based methods, despite a slight negative bias versus the phenylephrine test.
Pinna et al. (2002) conducted a cross-sectional in Myocardial infarction and chronic heart failure (n=108). Whole-band average BRS (WBA-BRS) vs. Classical coherence criterion and phenylephrine test (Phe-BRS) was evaluated on Measurability of BRS and agreement with Phe-BRS. The whole-band average BRS method increased measurability in MI and CHF patients compared to the classical coherence criterion (43% and 49% respectively), despite a negative bias versus Phe-BRS.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: