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

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.

Assessment of intrathoracic impedance algorithm in the pediatric and adult congenital population.

BACKGROUND: Decreased intrathoracic impedance has been used in adults to predict heart failure (HF) exacerbations. A commercial algorithm, OptiVol® (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA), identifies patients with decreased impedance. We sought to determine the specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of OptiVol for predicting HF exacerbation or increased arrhythmia burden in pediatric and adult congenital heart disease (CHD) patients. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective chart review was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were: (1) <19 years or CHD adults, (2) an implanted device with OptiVol capability, (3) implanted between April 9 and September 6, and (4) follow-up of >30 days postimplant. Clinical events were defined as clinical HF exacerbation/hospital admission, initiation/uptitration of medication, or increased arrhythmia burden. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients (19 ± 9 years) were identified with the following indications: 20% dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), 11% hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), 43% CHD, 15% channelopathy, and 11% other. Thirty-nine had 122 OptiVol crossings (median 2, range 1-11); 30% were linked to a cause. The remaining 33 had no crossing, though 17 had 89 clinical events. The clinical event rate was 19% greater in patients with crossings, though not statistically significant (P = 0.4). The algorithm had a 59% sensitivity, 52% specificity, and 62% PPV. Clinical HF exacerbation and arrhythmia burden did not significantly correlate with decreased impedance though uptitration or initiation of HF medication did correlate significantly (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The algorithm sensitivity for pediatric DCM, HCM, CHD, and adult CHD was equivalent to the general adult population. Further studies are warranted to assess whether inaccuracy in prediction is secondary to the algorithm or to differences in the clinical response of pediatric/CHD patients.