Smith Justin W, O'Neal Wesley T, Shoemaker M Benjamin, Chen Lin Y, Alonso Alvaro, Whalen S Patrick, Soliman Elsayed Z
Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiology Section, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Feb 1;119(3):466-472. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.10.016. Epub 2016 Nov 1.
Reports on the association between the PR-interval and atrial fibrillation (AF) are conflicting. We hypothesized that inconsistencies stem from that fact that the PR-interval represents a composite of several distinct components. We examined the associations of the PR-interval and its components (P-wave onset to P-wave peak duration, P-wave peak to P-wave end duration, and PR-segment) with incident AF in 14,924 participants (mean age 54 ± 5.8 years; 26% black; 55% women) from the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities study. The PR-interval and its components were automatically measured at baseline (1987 to 1989) from standard 12-lead electrocardiograms. PR-interval >200 ms was considered prolonged and values above the ninety-fifth percentile defined abnormal PR-interval components. AF was ascertained during follow-up through December 31, 2010. Over a median follow-up of 21.2 years, 1,985 participants (13%) developed AF. Prolonged PR-interval was associated with an increased risk of AF (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.40). However, PR-interval components showed varying levels of association with AF (P-wave onset to P-wave peak duration: HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.88; P-wave peak to P-wave end duration: HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; and PR-segment: HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29). In addition, the components of the PR-interval had weak-to-moderate correlation with each other (correlation r ranged from -0.44 to 0.06). In conclusion, our findings suggest the PR-interval represents a composite of distinct components that are not uniformly associated with AF. Without considering the contribution of each component, inconsistent associations between the PR-interval and AF are inevitable.
关于PR间期与心房颤动(AF)之间关联的报告相互矛盾。我们推测,不一致的原因在于PR间期代表了几个不同成分的组合。我们在社区动脉粥样硬化风险研究的14924名参与者(平均年龄54±5.8岁;26%为黑人;55%为女性)中,研究了PR间期及其成分(P波起始至P波峰值持续时间、P波峰值至P波结束持续时间以及PR段)与新发AF的关联。PR间期及其成分在基线时(1987年至1989年)通过标准12导联心电图自动测量。PR间期>200毫秒被认为延长,高于第95百分位数的值定义为异常PR间期成分。在随访至2010年12月31日期间确定AF情况。在中位随访21.2年期间,1985名参与者(13%)发生了AF。PR间期延长与AF风险增加相关(风险比[HR]1.19,95%置信区间[CI]1.02至1.40)。然而,PR间期成分与AF的关联程度各不相同(P波起始至P波峰值持续时间:HR 1.57,95%CI 1.31至1.88;P波峰值至P波结束持续时间:HR 1.20,95%CI 0.99至1.46;以及PR段:HR 1.05,95%CI 0.85至1.29)。此外,PR间期的各成分之间具有弱至中度的相关性(相关系数r范围为-0.44至0.06)。总之,我们的研究结果表明,PR间期代表了不同成分的组合,这些成分与AF的关联并不一致。如果不考虑每个成分的作用,PR间期与AF之间出现不一致的关联是不可避免的。