Open AccessImpact of Left Ventricular Remodeling on Ventricular Repolarization and Heart Rate Variability in Patients after Myocardial Infarction Treated with Primary PCI: Prospective 6 Months Follow‐up
Author(s) -
Szydlo Krzysztof,
Wita Krystian,
TruszGluza Maria,
Urbanczyk Dagmara,
Filipecki Artur,
Orszulak Witold,
Tabor Zbigniew,
Krauze Jolanta,
Kwasniewski Wojciech,
Myszor Jaroslaw,
Turski Maciej,
Kolasa Jaroslaw,
Szczogiel Jan
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
annals of noninvasive electrocardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.494
H-Index - 48
eISSN - 1542-474X
pISSN - 1082-720X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1542-474x.2007.00195.x
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiology , ventricle , ejection fraction , myocardial infarction , repolarization , heart rate variability , ventricular remodeling , heart rate , heart failure , blood pressure , electrophysiology
Background: The relation between postinfarction left ventricle remodeling (LVR), autonomic nervous system and repolarization process is unclear. Purpose of the study was to assess the influence of LVR on the early (QTpeak) and late (TpeakTend) repolarization periods in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) treated with primary PCI. The day‐to‐night differences of repolarization parameters and the relation between QT and heart rate variability (HRV) indices, as well left ventricle function were also assessed. Methods: The study cohort of 104 pts was examined 6 months after acute MI. HRV and QT indices (corrected to the heart rate) were obtained from the entire 24‐hour Holter recording, daytime and nighttime periods. Results: LVR was found in 33 patients (31.7%). The study groups (LVR+ vs LVR−) did not differ in age, the extent of coronary artery lesions and treatment. Left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower (38%± 11% vs 55%± 11%, P < 0.001), both QTc (443 ± 26 ms vs 420 ± 20 ms, P < 0.001) and TpeakTendc (98 ± 11 ms vs 84 ± 12 ms, P < 0.005) were longer in LVR + patients, with no differences for QTpeakc. Trends toward lower values of time‐domain (SDRR, rMSSD) HRV parameters were found in LVR+ pts. Day‐to‐night difference was observed only for SDRR, more marked in LVR‐group. Remarkable relations between delta LVEF (6 months minus baseline), delta LVEDV and TpeakTendc were found, with no such relationships for QTpeakc. Conclusions: The patients with LVR have longer repolarization time, especially the late phase‐ TpeakTend, which represents transmural dispersion of repolarization. Its prolongation seems to be related to local attributes of myocardium and global function of the left ventricle but unrelated to the autonomic nervous influences. Remodeling with moderate LV systolic dysfunction is associated with insignificant decrease in HRV indices and preserved circadian variability.