1. |
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
- Quintana, M, et al.
(författare)
-
Heart rate variability as a means of assessing prognosis after acute myocardial infarction. A 3-year follow-up study.
- 1997
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 18:5, s. 789-97
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: The present study evaluated the prognostic value of heart rate variability after acute myocardial infarction in comparison with other known risk factors. The cut-off points that maximized the hazards ratio were also explored. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Heart rate variability was assessed with 24 h ambulatory electrocardiography in 74 patients with acute myocardial infarction, 4 +/- 2 days after hospital admission and in 24 healthy controls. Patients were followed for 36 +/- 15 months. RESULTS: During follow-up, 18 patients died, nine suffered a non-fatal infarction and 20 underwent revascularization procedures. Heart rate variability was higher in survivors than in non-survivors (P = 0.005). This difference was found at higher statistical levels when comparing non-survivors vs controls (P = 0.0002). A similar statistically significant difference was also found between survivors vs controls (P = 0.04). Patients suffering non-fatal infarction and cardiac events (defined as death, non-fatal infarction or revascularization) had a lower heart rate variability than those without (P = 0.03 and P = 0.03, respectively). With multivariate regression analysis, decreased heart rate variability independently predicted mortality and death or non-fatal infarction. The presence of a left ventricular ejection fraction < 40% and a history of systemic hypertension were, however, stronger predictors. The cut-off points that maximized the hazards ratio using the Cox model differed from those reported by others. CONCLUSION: Decreased heart rate variability independently predicted poor prognosis after myocardial infarction. However, the cut-off points that should be used in clinical practice are still a matter for further investigation.
|
|
4. |
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
|
|