Suppr超能文献

在德国 DEVICE 注册研究中,临床实践中评估的静息心率对除颤器受者没有预后相关性。

Resting heart rate assessed within clinical practice demonstrates no prognostic relevance for defibrillator recipients in the German DEVICE registry.

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care, cardiac Neuro- and Electrophysiology Research Consortium (cNEP), EVK Düsseldorf, Kirchfeldstr. 40, 40217, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2024 Nov 25;14(1):29189. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-78851-z.

Abstract

Resting heart rate (RHR) has prognostic implications in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, where ≤ 70 bpm is targeted. Whether a RHR > 70 bpm assessed within clinical practice goes along with elevated cardiovascular risk in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) / cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) recipients remains incompletely understood. A total of 1589 patients (ICD n = 1172 / CRT-D n = 417, median age 65 years, 22.6% female) undergoing ICD/CRT-D implantation or revision in the prospective German DEVICE multicenter registry were analyzed. RHR was assessed via a 12-channel electrocardiogram at enrollment. 1-year outcomes (all-cause mortality, major cardio- and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause hospital admission) were compared between patients with a RHR ≤ 70 bpm and > 70 bpm. 733 patients (46.1%) showed a RHR > 70 bpm. Median RHR was 63 (interquartile range 59; 68) bpm (≤ 70 bpm group) and 80 (75; 89) bpm (> 70 bpm group). Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was present in 76.3%, a prior myocardial infarction in 32.4% and non-ischemic heart disease in 44.9%. One-year all-cause mortality was similar between RHR groups (≤ 70 bpm 5.4% vs. > 70 bpm 5.4%, p = 0.96), and subgroup analysis regarding patient characteristics and comorbidities revealed only a significantly higher rate of patients with dual chamber ICD in the > 70 bpm group (0.8% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.003). MACCE (5.9% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.87) and defibrillator shock rates (9.9% vs. 9.8%, p = 1.0) were similar. Higher all-cause hospital admission rates were observed in patients with > 70 bpm RHR (23.1% vs. 29.0%, p = 0.027) driven by non-cardiovascular events (6.0% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.001). In conclusion, in ICD and CRT-D recipients a RHR at admission > 70 bpm may indicate patients at increased risk of all-cause hospital admission but not of other adverse cardiovascular events or death at 1-year follow-up.

摘要

静息心率(RHR)在射血分数降低的心力衰竭中有预后意义,目标值为≤70 bpm。在临床实践中评估的 RHR>70 bpm 是否与植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)/心脏再同步治疗除颤器(CRT-D)受者的心血管风险升高有关仍不完全清楚。对前瞻性德国 DEVICE 多中心注册研究中接受 ICD/CRT-D 植入或修正的 1589 例患者(ICD n=1172/CRT-D n=417,中位年龄 65 岁,22.6%为女性)进行了分析。通过 12 通道心电图在入组时评估 RHR。比较 RHR≤70 bpm 和>R70 bpm 患者的 1 年结局(全因死亡率、主要心脑血管事件(MACCE)、全因住院)。733 例(46.1%)患者 RHR>70 bpm。中位 RHR 为 63(四分位距 59;68)bpm(≤70 bpm 组)和 80(75;89)bpm(>70 bpm 组)。射血分数降低的心力衰竭占 76.3%,既往心肌梗死占 32.4%,非缺血性心脏病占 44.9%。RHR 组的 1 年全因死亡率相似(RHR≤70 bpm 为 5.4%,RHR>70 bpm 为 5.4%,p=0.96),且关于患者特征和合并症的亚组分析仅显示 RHR>70 bpm 组双腔 ICD 患者的比例显著更高(0.8%比 9.2%,p=0.003)。MACCE(5.9%比 6.1%,p=0.87)和除颤器电击率(9.9%比 9.8%,p=1.0)相似。RHR>70 bpm 患者的全因住院率较高(23.1%比 29.0%,p=0.027),主要由非心血管事件(6.0%比 11.7%,p=0.001)驱动。总之,在 ICD 和 CRT-D 受者中,入院时 RHR>70 bpm 可能提示患者发生全因住院的风险增加,但在 1 年随访时无其他不良心血管事件或死亡的风险增加。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6e17/11589132/ba1bb891c340/41598_2024_78851_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验