4.6 Article

Human sinus arrhythmia: inconsistencies of a teleological hypothesis

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00716.2008

Keywords

respiratory sinus arrhythmia; heart rate variability; ventilation perfusion matching; vagal modulation; pulmonary gas exchange

Funding

  1. New Zealand National Heart Foundation [1284]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tzeng YC, Sin PY, Galletly DC. Human sinus arrhythmia: inconsistencies of a teleological hypothesis. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 296: H65-H70, 2009. First published October 31, 2008; doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00716.2008. - Respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) may serve an inherent function in optimizing pulmonary gas exchange efficiency via clustering and scattering of heart beats during the inspiratory and expiratory phases of the respiratory cycle. This study sought to determine whether physiological levels of RSA, enhanced by slow paced breathing, caused more heart beats to cluster in inspiration. In 12 human subjects, we analyzed the histogram distribution of heart beats throughout the respiratory cycle during paced breathing at 12, 9, and 6 breaths/min (br/min). The inspiratory period-to-respiratory period ratio was fixed at similar to 0.5. RSA and its relationship with respiration was characterized in the phase domain by average cubic-spline interpolation of electrocardiographic R wave-to-R wave interval fluctuations throughout all respiratory cycles. Although 6 br/min breathing was associated with a significant increase in RSA amplitude (P < 0.01), we observed no significant increase in the proportion of heart beats in inspiration (P = 0.34). Contrary to assumptions in the literature, we observed no significant clustering of heart beats even with high levels of RSA enhanced by slow breathing. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that RSA optimizes pulmonary gas exchange efficiency via clustering of heart beats in inspiration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available