Evaluation of Index of Cardio-Electrophysiological Balance in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation on Antiarrhythmic-Drug Therapy.
Antiarrhythmic-drug
Atrial fibrillation
Index of cardio-electrophysiological balance
Ventricular arrhythmia
Journal
Cardiology research
ISSN: 1923-2829
Titre abrégé: Cardiol Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101557543
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
22
10
2020
accepted:
09
11
2020
entrez:
15
1
2021
pubmed:
16
1
2021
medline:
16
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Index of cardio-electrophysiological balance (iCEB) has been described as a novel risk marker for predicting malignant ventricular arrhythmia. There remains limited evidence on the effects of amiodarone and propafenone used for sinus rhythm maintenance on iCEB in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to evaluate iCEB in patients with AF on antiarrhythmic-drug therapy. A total of 108 patients with AF (68 patients using amiodarone and 40 patients using propafenone) and 50 healthy subjects were included in the study. All groups underwent a standard 12-lead surface electrocardiogram. QRS duration, QT, T wave peak-to-end (Tp-e) intervals, iCEB (QT/QRS) and iCEBc (heart rate-corrected QT (QTc)/QRS) rates were calculated from the electrocardiogram and compared between groups. QT, Tp-e intervals and Tp-e/QT ratio were significantly longer in the amiodarone group than the propafenone and control groups (P < 0.001, for all). iCEB was similar in the amiodarone and control groups (4.4 ± 0.6 and 4.2 ± 0.4; P > 0.05), while iCEB values in the propafenone group were significantly lower than the amiodarone group and control groups (3.9 ± 0.5; P < 0.001). There was a significantly difference in iCEBc values among the amiodarone, control and propafenone groups (4.8 ± 0.6, 4.6 ± 0.4 and 4.3 ± 0.6; P < 0.001, respectively). In this study, higher iCEBc parameters were observed in patients using amiodarone, while iCEBc values were lowest among patients with AF using propafenone. Further studies are needed to determine whether these electrophysiological changes are associated with ventricular arrhythmias for patients with AF on antiarrhythmic-drug therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Index of cardio-electrophysiological balance (iCEB) has been described as a novel risk marker for predicting malignant ventricular arrhythmia. There remains limited evidence on the effects of amiodarone and propafenone used for sinus rhythm maintenance on iCEB in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to evaluate iCEB in patients with AF on antiarrhythmic-drug therapy.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 108 patients with AF (68 patients using amiodarone and 40 patients using propafenone) and 50 healthy subjects were included in the study. All groups underwent a standard 12-lead surface electrocardiogram. QRS duration, QT, T wave peak-to-end (Tp-e) intervals, iCEB (QT/QRS) and iCEBc (heart rate-corrected QT (QTc)/QRS) rates were calculated from the electrocardiogram and compared between groups.
RESULTS
RESULTS
QT, Tp-e intervals and Tp-e/QT ratio were significantly longer in the amiodarone group than the propafenone and control groups (P < 0.001, for all). iCEB was similar in the amiodarone and control groups (4.4 ± 0.6 and 4.2 ± 0.4; P > 0.05), while iCEB values in the propafenone group were significantly lower than the amiodarone group and control groups (3.9 ± 0.5; P < 0.001). There was a significantly difference in iCEBc values among the amiodarone, control and propafenone groups (4.8 ± 0.6, 4.6 ± 0.4 and 4.3 ± 0.6; P < 0.001, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, higher iCEBc parameters were observed in patients using amiodarone, while iCEBc values were lowest among patients with AF using propafenone. Further studies are needed to determine whether these electrophysiological changes are associated with ventricular arrhythmias for patients with AF on antiarrhythmic-drug therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33447324
doi: 10.14740/cr1185
pmc: PMC7781268
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
37-46Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright 2021, Afsin et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Références
Rev Port Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2018 May;37(5):435-446
pubmed: 29636202
World J Clin Cases. 2015 Aug 16;3(8):705-20
pubmed: 26301231
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1998 Jan;21(1 Pt 2):172-5
pubmed: 9474667
Circulation. 2012 Jan 17;125(2):381-9
pubmed: 22249528
Am J Med. 2002 Oct 1;113(5):359-64
pubmed: 12401529
Europace. 2018 May 1;20(5):731-732an
pubmed: 29438514
N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec 5;347(23):1825-33
pubmed: 12466506
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Dec 2;64(21):e1-76
pubmed: 24685669
Circ J. 2009 Feb;73(2):242-8
pubmed: 19060419
J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2013 Sep-Oct;68(2):250-259
pubmed: 23337247
Clin Sci (Lond). 2003 Dec;105(6):671-6
pubmed: 12857349
Circ Res. 2014 Apr 25;114(9):1453-68
pubmed: 24763464
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016 Nov;50(5):e1-e88
pubmed: 27663299
Br J Pharmacol. 2011 Sep;164(2):254-9
pubmed: 21488862
Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2016 May;21(3):294-304
pubmed: 26305685
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Mar;16(3):233-70
pubmed: 25712077
Heart Rhythm. 2006 Aug;3(8):948-56
pubmed: 16876745
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2012 Aug 1;5(4):868-77
pubmed: 22895603
Br J Pharmacol. 2011 Sep;164(2):260-73
pubmed: 21480866
N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec 5;347(23):1834-40
pubmed: 12466507
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Mar 2;55(9):934-47
pubmed: 20185054
Front Physiol. 2013 Jun 28;4:154
pubmed: 23825462
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 28;(3):CD005049
pubmed: 25820938
Br J Pharmacol. 2011 Jun;163(4):675-93
pubmed: 21306581
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Sep;14(3):222-30
pubmed: 19587223
Chest. 2010 Feb;137(2):263-72
pubmed: 19762550
Europace. 2013 Apr;15(4):478-81
pubmed: 23530117