Skip Navigation

Europace 2008 10(2):227-234; doi:10.1093/europace/eum302
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ptaszynski, P.
Right arrow Articles by Kornet, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ptaszynski, P.
Right arrow Articles by Kornet, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2008. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org


NONINVASIVE ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY

Risk stratification after myocardial infarction: a new method of determining the neural component of the baroreflex is potentially more discriminative in distinguishing patients at high and low risk for arrhythmias

Pawel Ptaszynski1,2 {dagger}, Thomas Klingenheben1,3,* {dagger}, Bart Gerritse4 and Lilian Kornet4

1 Department of Cardiology, Division of Clinical Electrophysiology, J.W. Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany; 2 Medical University Lodz, Lodz, Poland; 3 Cardiology Practice Bonn, Im Mühlenbach 2B, Bonn D-53127, Germany; 4 Medtronic Bakken Research Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Aims: We hypothesize that the neural component (NC) of the baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) is a better risk stratifier for ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) than conventional BRS itself, because it is both independent of vessel wall stiffness and can be measured non-invasively.

Methods and results: NC was determined by correlating spontaneous carotid artery diameter variations with R–R interval variations using spectral analyses. In consecutive outpatient populations with chronic coronary artery disease the ability of the NC to distinguish post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients at risk for VT/VF (post-MIHIGH RISK) from post-MI less prone to arrhythmias (post-MILOW RISK) was compared with the pressure-derived BRSphenyl and BRSspectral method. Ninety-six patients, i.e. 28 post-MILOW RISK, 28 post-MIHIGH RISK [a LVEF(left ventricular ejection fraction) <30% and/or history of VT/VF] and 40 healthy controls were enrolled. With NC, rather than with BRS methods, median values for post-MIHIGH RISK were smaller than for post-MILOW RISK patients (NC, P = 0.03; BRSspectral, P = 0.35; BRSphenyl, P = 0.63). Variability of R–R interval (LF = 0.04–0.15 Hz) was significantly larger in the control group than in the post-MIHIGH RISK and post-MILOW RISK group (P < 0.01 and P < 0.01). To separate post-MIHIGH RISK from post-MILOW RISK patients, a linear combination of age and the logarithm of the NC measurement was constructed as a risk index. By optimizing the intercept of this line, an optimal sensitivity and specificity pair was determined. The sum of optimal specificity and sensitivity was higher for NC (155) than for BRSspectral (133) and BRSphenyl method (132). With all methods, values for post-MI patients were significantly smaller than for controls.

Conclusion: NC may be superior to conventional BRS measures in identifying post-MI patients at high risk for VT/VF.

Key Words: Baroreflex, Neural component, Risk stratification


* Corresponding author. Tel: +49 228 623324; fax: +49 228 616881.E-mail address: klingenheben{at}bonn-kardiologie.de; klingenheben{at}aol.com

{dagger} The first 2 authors contributed equally to the study.

Manuscript submitted 25 September 2007. Accepted after revision 20 December 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.