Why should one normalize heart rate variability with respect to average heart rate

Heart rate variability (HRV) is a recognized risk factor in many disease states (Bravi et al., 2011; Sacha et al., 2013a). However, HRV is significantly correlated with an average heart rate (HR), and this association is both physiologically and mathematically determined. The physiological determination comes from the autonomic nervous system activity (Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology, and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology, 1996), but the mathematical one is caused by the non-linear (inverse) relationship between R-R interval and HR (Sacha and Pluta, 2005a,b, 2008). HRV may be estimated by using R-R interval (the most frequent method) or HR signals, yet, they both do not yield the same results since they are inversely related with each other—indeed, the analyses are mathematically biased (Sacha and Pluta, 2005a,b). If one uses R-R intervals, the same changes of HR cause much higher fluctuations of R-R intervals for the slow average HR than for the fast one (Figure 1A). Conversely, if one employs HR signals, the same changes of R-R intervals cause much higher fluctuations of HR for the fast than slow average HR (Figure 1B). Consequently, due to these mathematical reasons, HRV estimated from R-R intervals should negatively correlate with average HR (or positively with average R-R interval), but HRV estimated from HR signals should be positively correlated with average HR (or negatively with average R-R interval) (Sacha and Pluta, 2005a,b). Moreover, due to the inverse relationship between R-R interval and HR, there is a possibility that a given patient may have higher HRV than another in terms of R-R intervals and lower HRV in terms of HRs—Figure 1C explains such a case (Sacha and Pluta, 2005a).