A COMPARISON OF 3 QUANTIFICATION METHODS FOR ESTIMATION OF RESPIRATORY SINUS ARRHYTHMIA
A COMPARISON OF 3 QUANTIFICATION METHODS FOR ESTIMATION OF RESPIRATORY SINUS ARRHYTHMIA
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1469-8986.1990.tb03198.x
复制
发表时间：
1990-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
WIENTJES, C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
GROSSMAN, P;VANBEEK, J;WIENTJES, C
实证文献表明，呼吸性窦性心律失常是副交感心脏控制的敏感无创指标。 然而，对于评估呼吸性窦性心律失常的最佳量化技术，研究人员尚未达成普遍共识，尽管有很多猜测认为特定的估计技术或多或少反映了迷走神经过程，并且可能或多或少受到与呼吸无关的心率变异性的其他影响的影响。 本研究比较了估计呼吸性窦性心律失常 (RSA) 的三种量化程序：(1) 频谱分析技术，(2) 复杂的去趋势方法，消除与呼吸无关的周期性和非周期性心脏变化，以及 (3) 时域峰谷程序，采用吸气和呼气周期作为窗口，确定与呼吸相关的心搏间隔波动范围。 呼吸阶段。 使用三个不同的男性受试者样本（包括学生、成人血压正常者和成人高血压者）对源自这些技术的测量结果进行个体内和个体间比较。 所有测量值之间的个体间相关性均高于 0.92，42 个个体的平均受试者内相关性为 0.96，因此表明测量值之间具有显着的可比性。 此外，鉴于大量证据表明 RSA 幅度与呼吸参数之间存在合法的个体内关系，我们采用呼吸周期作为外部标准，并比较了该变量与（2）和（3）之间的个体内相关性；结果表明，(3) 与呼吸的相关性明显高于 (2)，尽管这两种测量的平均 r 相差并不大（0.91 与 0.84）。 最后，对数据的检查和进一步的回归分析并未表明任何 RSA 估计值受到心脏变异性其他组成部分的差异污染。 我们的研究结果表明，这三种技术作为心脏迷走神经张力的指标几乎相同，并且似乎可以减轻人们对任何手术的劣势的担忧。 因此，量化程序的选择应根据调查的具体经验需要进行调整。 讨论了每种方法的优点和缺点。
The empirical literature has shown that respiratory sinus arrhythmia is a sensitive noninvasive index of parasympathetic cardiac control. Nevertheless there has been no general agreement among investigators as to the most preferable quantification technique for assessing respiratory sinus arrhythmia, although there has been much speculation that specific estimation techniques are more or less reflective of vagal processes and could be more or less contaminated by other influences upon heart period variability unrelated to respiration. This study compared three quantification procedures for estimating respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA): (1) a spectral analytic technique, (2) a complex detrending approach removing periodic and aperiodic cardiac variations unrelated to respiration, and (3) a time-domain, peak-valley procedure employing inspiratory and expiratory periods as windows for determining range of cardiac-interval fluctuations associated with respiratory phase. Measures derived from these techniques were intra- and interindividually compared using three different samples of male subjects, including students, adult normotensives, and adult hypertensives. All interindividual correlations between measures yielded coefficients above .92 and the mean within-subject correlation across 42 individuals was .96, thus indicating a marked degree of comparability between measures. Additionally, given that much evidence indicates lawful within-individual relations between RSA amplitude and respiratory parameters, we employed respiratory period as an external criterion and compared intraindividual correlations between this variable and (2) and (3); results showed that (3) was significantly more highly associated with respiration than was (2), although the mean r's for the two measures did not diverge greatly (.91 vs. .84). Finally, inspection of the data and further regression analyses did not suggest that any of the RSA estimates were differentially contaminated by other components of cardiac variability. Our findings suggest that the three techniques are almost equivalent as indices of cardiac vagal tone and would appear to ease concerns about the inferiority of any of the procedures. Choice of a quantification procedure should therefore be tailored to the specific empirical needs of an investigation. The advantages and disadvantages of each method are discussed.