Advertisement






Click here for more guidelines.
CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005; 46:1314-1321, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.06.062 (Published online 10 September 2005).
© 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pinna, G. D.
Right arrow Articles by La Rovere, M. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pinna, G. D.
Right arrow Articles by La Rovere, M. T.

Applicability and Clinical Relevance of the Transfer Function Method in the Assessment of Baroreflex Sensitivity in Heart Failure Patients

Gian Domenico Pinna, MS*, Roberto Maestri, MS, Soccorso Capomolla, MD, Oreste Febo, MD, Elena Robbi, BS, Franco Cobelli, MD and Maria Teresa La Rovere, MD

Department of Cardiology and Biomedical Engineering, Salvatore Maugeri Foundation, IRCCS, Scientific Institute of Montescano, Montescano (PV), Italy



View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 1 Representative example of the dramatic effect that a single isolated ectopic beat and its correction might have in the measurement of baroreflex sensitivity by the transfer function method (TF-BRS). Tracings (A) show systolic arterial pressure (SAP) and RR interval time series with a ventricular premature complex at the beginning of the recording. Measurement of TF-BRS on these signals gives 1.2 ms/mm Hg, whereas excluding the ectopic beat from the computation (i.e., starting the analysis window from the dashed bar) gives 6.2 ms/mm Hg. Tracings (B) show the same signals after correction of the ectopic beat by linear interpolation. Despite the apparent negligible effect on the fluctuation pattern of the two signals, TF-BRS becomes 4.7 ms/mm Hg, that is, –24% compared with the measurement obtained without the ectopic beat. Although the effect of the correction is not always so dramatic, this example highlights the need to perform a careful check every time a correction is made.

 


View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 2 Receiver-operating characteristic curves for the prediction of a two-year outcome according to baroreflex sensitivity by the transfer function method (TF-BRS) (solid line) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (dotted line). The identity line indicates no predictive discrimination. The area under the curve was 0.68 ± 0.06 for TF-BRS and 0.61 ± 0.05 for LVEF.

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 3 Kaplan-Meier survival curves according to dichotomized of baroreflex sensitivity by the transfer function method (TF-BRS) (n = 228). Estimated survival probabilities (95% confidence interval) at 12, 24, and 36 months are: 0.97 (0.94 to 1.00), 0.92 (0.87 to 0.97), 0.87 (0.80 to 0.93), respectively, for TF-BRS >3.1 ms/mm Hg; and 0.88 (0.82 to 0.95), 0.73 (0.63 to 0.82), 0.65 (0.55 to 0.76), respectively, for TF-BRS ≤3.1 ms/mm Hg.

 


View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 4 Kaplan-Meier survival curves according to the transfer function (TF)-index (n = 309). Subjects at high risk are those with depressed baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) (i.e., TF-BRS ≤3.1 ms/mm Hg) or having a missing BRS due to high ectopic activity, whereas subjects at low risk are those with more preserved BRS (i.e., TF-BRS >3.1 ms/mm Hg). Estimated survival probabilities (95% confidence interval) at 12, 24, and 36 months are: 0.97 (0.94 to 1.00), 0.92 (0.87 to 0.97), and 0.87 (0.80 to 0.93), respectively, for low risk; and 0.87 (0.82 to 0.92), 0.71 (0.64 to 0.78), 0.62 (0.54 to 0.70), respectively, for high risk.

 




 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement