Limits...
Finger volume pulse waveforms facilitate reliable assessment of heart rate variability, but not blood pressure variability or baroreflex function.

Linder JR, Stauss HM, Gindes H, Pierce GL, Von Bergen NH, Haynes WG, Fiedorowicz JG - BMC Cardiovasc Disord (2014)

Bottom Line: Squared coherence between systolic BP time series derived from the Finometer and EndoPAT devices was low, suggesting poor correlation.In contrast, squared coherence between HR time series derived from the two devices was excellent [High Frequency (HF) = 0.80, Low Frequency (LF) = 0.81], with gain values close to 1.0.ICC values for time- and frequency-domain HRV parameters were excellent (>0.9 except for relative HF HRV, which was 0.77), while ICC values for frequency-domain BP variability parameters and baroreceptor-HR reflex sensitivity were low.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. jess-fiedorowicz@uiowa.edu.

ABSTRACT

Background: We sought to determine whether heart rate variability (HRV), blood pressure (BP) variability, and baroreceptor-heart rate reflex sensitivity can be reliably assessed using finger volume pulse waveforms obtained from the commercially available EndoPAT device.

Methods: Non-invasive BP (Finometer Pro as a non-invasive standard) and finger volume (EndoPAT) waveforms were recorded in 65 adults (37 ± 14 years; 60% female) and systolic BP and heart rate (HR) time series were derived after calibrating the EndoPAT signal based on systolic and diastolic BP values obtained by a sphygomomanometer. Transfer function analyses were performed to test for coherence between systolic BP and HR time series derived from the Finometer and EndoPAT devices. Time-domain HRV parameters, frequency domain HR and systolic BP variability parameters, and baroreflex sensitivity (sequence technique) were computed from Finometer- and EndoPAT-derived time series and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated.

Results: Squared coherence between systolic BP time series derived from the Finometer and EndoPAT devices was low, suggesting poor correlation. In contrast, squared coherence between HR time series derived from the two devices was excellent [High Frequency (HF) = 0.80, Low Frequency (LF) = 0.81], with gain values close to 1.0. ICC values for time- and frequency-domain HRV parameters were excellent (>0.9 except for relative HF HRV, which was 0.77), while ICC values for frequency-domain BP variability parameters and baroreceptor-HR reflex sensitivity were low.

Conclusions: Finger volume pulse waveforms can be used to reliably assess both time-domain and frequency-domain HR variability. However, frequency domain BP variability parameters cannot be reliably assessed from finger volume pulse waveforms using the simple calibration technique used in this study.

Show MeSH
Bland-Altman plots of spectral domain BPV parameters derived from EndoPAT and Finometer devices. Bland-Altman comparison of frequency-domain BPV parameters between EndoPAT- and Finometer-derived time series shows low agreement between the two devices — across VLF, LF, and HF spectral ranges for both absolute and relative BPV. However, relative LF and absolute HF BPV demonstrate greater accuracy relative to other BPV measures.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4269858&req=5

Fig3: Bland-Altman plots of spectral domain BPV parameters derived from EndoPAT and Finometer devices. Bland-Altman comparison of frequency-domain BPV parameters between EndoPAT- and Finometer-derived time series shows low agreement between the two devices — across VLF, LF, and HF spectral ranges for both absolute and relative BPV. However, relative LF and absolute HF BPV demonstrate greater accuracy relative to other BPV measures.

Mentions: Comparison by Bland-Altman plots supported the results obtained by transfer function analysis and intra-class correlation analysis, indicating that EndoPAT and Finometer provide similar results for both time - (Figure 1) and frequency-domain (Figure 2) HRV parameters, across the range of observed values. For all frequency domain BPV parameters (Figure 3), the Bland-Altman plots demonstrated poor agreement between Finometer- and EndoPAT-derived values.Figure 1


Finger volume pulse waveforms facilitate reliable assessment of heart rate variability, but not blood pressure variability or baroreflex function.

Linder JR, Stauss HM, Gindes H, Pierce GL, Von Bergen NH, Haynes WG, Fiedorowicz JG - BMC Cardiovasc Disord (2014)

Bland-Altman plots of spectral domain BPV parameters derived from EndoPAT and Finometer devices. Bland-Altman comparison of frequency-domain BPV parameters between EndoPAT- and Finometer-derived time series shows low agreement between the two devices — across VLF, LF, and HF spectral ranges for both absolute and relative BPV. However, relative LF and absolute HF BPV demonstrate greater accuracy relative to other BPV measures.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4269858&req=5

Fig3: Bland-Altman plots of spectral domain BPV parameters derived from EndoPAT and Finometer devices. Bland-Altman comparison of frequency-domain BPV parameters between EndoPAT- and Finometer-derived time series shows low agreement between the two devices — across VLF, LF, and HF spectral ranges for both absolute and relative BPV. However, relative LF and absolute HF BPV demonstrate greater accuracy relative to other BPV measures.
Mentions: Comparison by Bland-Altman plots supported the results obtained by transfer function analysis and intra-class correlation analysis, indicating that EndoPAT and Finometer provide similar results for both time - (Figure 1) and frequency-domain (Figure 2) HRV parameters, across the range of observed values. For all frequency domain BPV parameters (Figure 3), the Bland-Altman plots demonstrated poor agreement between Finometer- and EndoPAT-derived values.Figure 1

Bottom Line: Squared coherence between systolic BP time series derived from the Finometer and EndoPAT devices was low, suggesting poor correlation.In contrast, squared coherence between HR time series derived from the two devices was excellent [High Frequency (HF) = 0.80, Low Frequency (LF) = 0.81], with gain values close to 1.0.ICC values for time- and frequency-domain HRV parameters were excellent (>0.9 except for relative HF HRV, which was 0.77), while ICC values for frequency-domain BP variability parameters and baroreceptor-HR reflex sensitivity were low.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. jess-fiedorowicz@uiowa.edu.

ABSTRACT

Background: We sought to determine whether heart rate variability (HRV), blood pressure (BP) variability, and baroreceptor-heart rate reflex sensitivity can be reliably assessed using finger volume pulse waveforms obtained from the commercially available EndoPAT device.

Methods: Non-invasive BP (Finometer Pro as a non-invasive standard) and finger volume (EndoPAT) waveforms were recorded in 65 adults (37 ± 14 years; 60% female) and systolic BP and heart rate (HR) time series were derived after calibrating the EndoPAT signal based on systolic and diastolic BP values obtained by a sphygomomanometer. Transfer function analyses were performed to test for coherence between systolic BP and HR time series derived from the Finometer and EndoPAT devices. Time-domain HRV parameters, frequency domain HR and systolic BP variability parameters, and baroreflex sensitivity (sequence technique) were computed from Finometer- and EndoPAT-derived time series and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated.

Results: Squared coherence between systolic BP time series derived from the Finometer and EndoPAT devices was low, suggesting poor correlation. In contrast, squared coherence between HR time series derived from the two devices was excellent [High Frequency (HF) = 0.80, Low Frequency (LF) = 0.81], with gain values close to 1.0. ICC values for time- and frequency-domain HRV parameters were excellent (>0.9 except for relative HF HRV, which was 0.77), while ICC values for frequency-domain BP variability parameters and baroreceptor-HR reflex sensitivity were low.

Conclusions: Finger volume pulse waveforms can be used to reliably assess both time-domain and frequency-domain HR variability. However, frequency domain BP variability parameters cannot be reliably assessed from finger volume pulse waveforms using the simple calibration technique used in this study.

Show MeSH