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