Maestri Roberto, La Rovere Maria Teresa, Pinna Gian Domenico
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Scientific Institute of Montescano, Italy.
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;180:128-32.
Accurate spectral analysis of 24-hour heart rate variability (HRV) requires time consuming interactive control of the overall processing, limiting its feasibility in large scale clinical trials. Fully automatic procedures allow a dramatic reduction of analysis time but the level of accuracy loss is unknown. In this study we compared automatic and interactive measurements of HRV indexes in a sample of 246 Holter recordings from chronic heart failure patients. We measured the total power of HRV and the power in the very low (0.01-0.04 Hz), low (0.04-0.15 Hz) and high (0.15-0.4 Hz) frequency bands. The comparison between the two methods was performed by computing the normalized difference between automatic and interactive measurements and estimating the bias and 95% limits of agreement. Automatic measurements showed a small bias (< ±8%) compared to interactive measurements, while the limits of agreement were ≤±23% in all spectral indexes. Our results indicate that the systematic and random difference between automatic and interactive measurements of spectral indexes of HRV are acceptable for clinical studies.
对24小时心率变异性(HRV)进行准确的频谱分析需要对整个处理过程进行耗时的交互式控制,这限制了其在大规模临床试验中的可行性。全自动程序可大幅减少分析时间,但准确性损失程度未知。在本研究中,我们比较了246例慢性心力衰竭患者动态心电图记录样本中HRV指标的自动测量值和交互式测量值。我们测量了HRV的总功率以及极低频(0.01 - 0.04Hz)、低频(0.04 - 0.15Hz)和高频(0.15 - 0.4Hz)频段的功率。通过计算自动测量值和交互式测量值之间的标准化差异,并估计偏差和95%一致性界限,对两种方法进行了比较。与交互式测量相比,自动测量显示出较小的偏差(<±8%),而所有频谱指标的一致性界限均≤±23%。我们的结果表明,HRV频谱指标自动测量和交互式测量之间的系统差异和随机差异对于临床研究是可接受的。