High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological Methods

Autores
Risk, Marcelo; Bonyhay, Istvan; Freeman, Roy
Año de publicación
2013
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Pharmacological methods to assess baroreflex sensitivity evoke supra-physiological blood pressure changes whereas computational methods use spontaneous fluctuations of blood pressure. The relationships among the different baroreflex assessment methods are still not fully understood. Although strong advocates for each technique exist, the differences between these methods need further clarification. Understanding the differences between pharmacological and spontaneous baroreflex methods could provide important insight into the baroreflex physiology. We compared the modified Oxford baroreflex gain and the transfer function modulus between spontaneous RR interval and blood pressure fluctuations in 18 healthy subjects (age: 39±10 yrs., BMI: 26±4.9). The transfer function was calculated over the low-frequency range of the RR interval and systolic blood pressure oscillations during random-frequency paced breathing. The average modified Oxford baroreflex gain was lower than the average transfer function modulus (15.7±9.2 ms/mmHg vs. 19.4±10.5 ms/mmHg, P<0.05). The difference between the two baroreflex measures within the individual subjects comprised a systematic difference (relative mean difference: 20.7%) and a random variance (typical error: 3.9 ms/mmHg). The transfer function modulus gradually increased with the frequency within the low-frequency range (LF), on average from 10.4±7.3 ms/mmHg to 21.2±9.8 ms/mmHg across subjects. Narrowing the zone of interest within the LF band produced a decrease in both the systematic difference (relative mean difference: 0.5%) and the random variance (typical error: 2.1 ms/mmHg) between the modified Oxford gain and the transfer function modulus. Our data suggest that the frequency dependent increase in low-frequency transfer function modulus between RR interval and blood pressure fluctuations contributes to both the systematic difference (bias) and the random variance (error) between the pharmacological and transfer function baroreflex measures. This finding suggests that both methodological and physiological factors underlie the observed disagreement between the pharmacological and the transfer function method. Thus both baroreflex measures contribute complementary information and can be considered valid methods for baroreflex sensitivity assessment.
Fil: Risk, Marcelo. Harvard Medical School; Estados Unidos
Fil: Bonyhay, Istvan. Harvard Medical School; Estados Unidos
Fil: Freeman, Roy. Harvard Medical School; Estados Unidos. Instituto Tecnologico de Buenos Aires; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Materia
HEART RATE VRIABILITY
BAROREFLEX
TRANSFER FUNCTIONS
BLOOD PRESSURE
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/9162

id CONICETDig_fcd3f151cd5bfb0570e48209882f3a70
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/9162
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological MethodsRisk, MarceloBonyhay, IstvanFreeman, RoyHEART RATE VRIABILITYBAROREFLEXTRANSFER FUNCTIONSBLOOD PRESSUREhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.1https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3Pharmacological methods to assess baroreflex sensitivity evoke supra-physiological blood pressure changes whereas computational methods use spontaneous fluctuations of blood pressure. The relationships among the different baroreflex assessment methods are still not fully understood. Although strong advocates for each technique exist, the differences between these methods need further clarification. Understanding the differences between pharmacological and spontaneous baroreflex methods could provide important insight into the baroreflex physiology. We compared the modified Oxford baroreflex gain and the transfer function modulus between spontaneous RR interval and blood pressure fluctuations in 18 healthy subjects (age: 39±10 yrs., BMI: 26±4.9). The transfer function was calculated over the low-frequency range of the RR interval and systolic blood pressure oscillations during random-frequency paced breathing. The average modified Oxford baroreflex gain was lower than the average transfer function modulus (15.7±9.2 ms/mmHg vs. 19.4±10.5 ms/mmHg, P<0.05). The difference between the two baroreflex measures within the individual subjects comprised a systematic difference (relative mean difference: 20.7%) and a random variance (typical error: 3.9 ms/mmHg). The transfer function modulus gradually increased with the frequency within the low-frequency range (LF), on average from 10.4±7.3 ms/mmHg to 21.2±9.8 ms/mmHg across subjects. Narrowing the zone of interest within the LF band produced a decrease in both the systematic difference (relative mean difference: 0.5%) and the random variance (typical error: 2.1 ms/mmHg) between the modified Oxford gain and the transfer function modulus. Our data suggest that the frequency dependent increase in low-frequency transfer function modulus between RR interval and blood pressure fluctuations contributes to both the systematic difference (bias) and the random variance (error) between the pharmacological and transfer function baroreflex measures. This finding suggests that both methodological and physiological factors underlie the observed disagreement between the pharmacological and the transfer function method. Thus both baroreflex measures contribute complementary information and can be considered valid methods for baroreflex sensitivity assessment.Fil: Risk, Marcelo. Harvard Medical School; Estados UnidosFil: Bonyhay, Istvan. Harvard Medical School; Estados UnidosFil: Freeman, Roy. Harvard Medical School; Estados Unidos. Instituto Tecnologico de Buenos Aires; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaPublic Library Of Science2013-11info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/9162Risk, Marcelo; Bonyhay, Istvan; Freeman, Roy; High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological Methods; Public Library Of Science; Plos One; 8; e795; 11-2013; 1-121932-6203enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079513info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828383/info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0079513info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:16:42Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/9162instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:16:43.186CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological Methods
title High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological Methods
spellingShingle High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological Methods
Risk, Marcelo
HEART RATE VRIABILITY
BAROREFLEX
TRANSFER FUNCTIONS
BLOOD PRESSURE
title_short High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological Methods
title_full High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological Methods
title_fullStr High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological Methods
title_full_unstemmed High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological Methods
title_sort High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological Methods
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Risk, Marcelo
Bonyhay, Istvan
Freeman, Roy
author Risk, Marcelo
author_facet Risk, Marcelo
Bonyhay, Istvan
Freeman, Roy
author_role author
author2 Bonyhay, Istvan
Freeman, Roy
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv HEART RATE VRIABILITY
BAROREFLEX
TRANSFER FUNCTIONS
BLOOD PRESSURE
topic HEART RATE VRIABILITY
BAROREFLEX
TRANSFER FUNCTIONS
BLOOD PRESSURE
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.1
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Pharmacological methods to assess baroreflex sensitivity evoke supra-physiological blood pressure changes whereas computational methods use spontaneous fluctuations of blood pressure. The relationships among the different baroreflex assessment methods are still not fully understood. Although strong advocates for each technique exist, the differences between these methods need further clarification. Understanding the differences between pharmacological and spontaneous baroreflex methods could provide important insight into the baroreflex physiology. We compared the modified Oxford baroreflex gain and the transfer function modulus between spontaneous RR interval and blood pressure fluctuations in 18 healthy subjects (age: 39±10 yrs., BMI: 26±4.9). The transfer function was calculated over the low-frequency range of the RR interval and systolic blood pressure oscillations during random-frequency paced breathing. The average modified Oxford baroreflex gain was lower than the average transfer function modulus (15.7±9.2 ms/mmHg vs. 19.4±10.5 ms/mmHg, P<0.05). The difference between the two baroreflex measures within the individual subjects comprised a systematic difference (relative mean difference: 20.7%) and a random variance (typical error: 3.9 ms/mmHg). The transfer function modulus gradually increased with the frequency within the low-frequency range (LF), on average from 10.4±7.3 ms/mmHg to 21.2±9.8 ms/mmHg across subjects. Narrowing the zone of interest within the LF band produced a decrease in both the systematic difference (relative mean difference: 0.5%) and the random variance (typical error: 2.1 ms/mmHg) between the modified Oxford gain and the transfer function modulus. Our data suggest that the frequency dependent increase in low-frequency transfer function modulus between RR interval and blood pressure fluctuations contributes to both the systematic difference (bias) and the random variance (error) between the pharmacological and transfer function baroreflex measures. This finding suggests that both methodological and physiological factors underlie the observed disagreement between the pharmacological and the transfer function method. Thus both baroreflex measures contribute complementary information and can be considered valid methods for baroreflex sensitivity assessment.
Fil: Risk, Marcelo. Harvard Medical School; Estados Unidos
Fil: Bonyhay, Istvan. Harvard Medical School; Estados Unidos
Fil: Freeman, Roy. Harvard Medical School; Estados Unidos. Instituto Tecnologico de Buenos Aires; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
description Pharmacological methods to assess baroreflex sensitivity evoke supra-physiological blood pressure changes whereas computational methods use spontaneous fluctuations of blood pressure. The relationships among the different baroreflex assessment methods are still not fully understood. Although strong advocates for each technique exist, the differences between these methods need further clarification. Understanding the differences between pharmacological and spontaneous baroreflex methods could provide important insight into the baroreflex physiology. We compared the modified Oxford baroreflex gain and the transfer function modulus between spontaneous RR interval and blood pressure fluctuations in 18 healthy subjects (age: 39±10 yrs., BMI: 26±4.9). The transfer function was calculated over the low-frequency range of the RR interval and systolic blood pressure oscillations during random-frequency paced breathing. The average modified Oxford baroreflex gain was lower than the average transfer function modulus (15.7±9.2 ms/mmHg vs. 19.4±10.5 ms/mmHg, P<0.05). The difference between the two baroreflex measures within the individual subjects comprised a systematic difference (relative mean difference: 20.7%) and a random variance (typical error: 3.9 ms/mmHg). The transfer function modulus gradually increased with the frequency within the low-frequency range (LF), on average from 10.4±7.3 ms/mmHg to 21.2±9.8 ms/mmHg across subjects. Narrowing the zone of interest within the LF band produced a decrease in both the systematic difference (relative mean difference: 0.5%) and the random variance (typical error: 2.1 ms/mmHg) between the modified Oxford gain and the transfer function modulus. Our data suggest that the frequency dependent increase in low-frequency transfer function modulus between RR interval and blood pressure fluctuations contributes to both the systematic difference (bias) and the random variance (error) between the pharmacological and transfer function baroreflex measures. This finding suggests that both methodological and physiological factors underlie the observed disagreement between the pharmacological and the transfer function method. Thus both baroreflex measures contribute complementary information and can be considered valid methods for baroreflex sensitivity assessment.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-11
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/9162
Risk, Marcelo; Bonyhay, Istvan; Freeman, Roy; High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological Methods; Public Library Of Science; Plos One; 8; e795; 11-2013; 1-12
1932-6203
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/9162
identifier_str_mv Risk, Marcelo; Bonyhay, Istvan; Freeman, Roy; High-Pass Filter Characteristics of the Baroreflex - A Comparison of Frequency Domain and Pharmacological Methods; Public Library Of Science; Plos One; 8; e795; 11-2013; 1-12
1932-6203
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079513
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828383/
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0079513
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Public Library Of Science
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Public Library Of Science
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614113804681216
score 13.070432