Article Title



Gabe Wilner, Abigail Marmurowicz, Andre Canino, Pedro Chung, Keilah Vaughan, Robert Buresh, FACSM, Cherilyn McLester, Brian Kliszczewicz, FACSM. Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA.

Background: There are various tools and techniques used to measure and quantify heart rate variability (HRV) in both applied and clinical settings. Traditionally, in applied settings, measures derived from a particular device will be evaluated using the online software Kubios. In the clinical setting, the Finapres (Fin) is commonly used and has its own software to provide a measure of HRV. The purpose of this study is to determine if the Fin provides a comparable HRV measure to that of Kubios. Methods: Ten healthy individuals (6 males, 4 females, ages 23±2 yrs) volunteered in this study. Participants were asked to visit the lab three times in a 10-day span. On each visit, participants’ resting HRV was collected via electrocardiogram (ECG). Participants were then placed in a supine position in a dimly lit room for a 10-minute recording. The final five minutes of each tracing was used. Each file was evaluated directly from the Fin software (Finapres, NOVA) for analysis of HRV metrics: root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD), standard deviation of normal-to-normal sinus beats (SDNN), high frequency (HF), and low frequency (LF). Data files were then transferred to the online software Kubios HRV Standard (version 3.5.1) for analysis of the same HRV metrics. Using the Kubios software, tracings were evaluated with no correction (NC), very low correction (VLC), and low correction (LC). SPSS was used and alpha was set to 0.05. Results: A total of 30 recordings were analyzed. A two-tail Pearson correlation was used to determine relationships between HRV markers derived from the Fin versus Kubios (NC, VLC, LC). The Pearson correlations Fin vs NC: RMSSD (r=.798, p=<.001), SDNN (r=.76, p =<.001), HF (r=.821, p=<.001), LF (r=.701, p=<.001). Fin vs VLC: RMSSD (r=.873, p=<.001), SDNN (r=.767, p =<.001), HF (r=.868, p=<.001), LF (r=.71, p=<.001). Fin vs LC: RMSSD (r=.881, p=<.001), SDNN (r=.762, p =<.001), HF (r=.869, p=<.001), LF (r=.719, p=<.001). Conclusions: The primary finding of this study suggest that Fin derived HRV measures rely on a proprietary correction factor that most reflects that of the VLC of Kubios. This is well within the acceptable correction of beat-to-beat intervals, and therefore may be considered comparable to measures derived from Kubios.

This document is currently not available here.