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
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/9162
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
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 |