Key result
Optimal discharge heart rate linked to ~24% LVEF improvement at one year versus non-optimal rates.
Why the study?
The target heart rate associated with optimal clinical outcomes in patients with systolic dysfunction following TAVR remains unknown.
Does achieving an optimal heart rate guided by deceleration time improve LVEF and reduce heart failure readmissions in patients with systolic dysfunction following TAVR?
Cohort (n=24)
Does achieving an optimal heart rate guided by deceleration time improve LVEF and reduce heart failure readmissions in patients with systolic dysfunction following TAVR?
Absolute Event Rate: 24% vs 7%
p-value: p=0.003
Achieving an optimal heart rate guided by deceleration time is associated with cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with systolic dysfunction following TAVR.
Optimal heart rate guidance may aid post-TAVR remodeling; observational data leaves open randomized confirmation before practice change.
Heart rate reduction therapy using ivabradine has demonstrated its prognostic implication in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, the target heart rate with optimal clinical outcomes, particularly for those with systolic dysfunction following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), remains unknown. Consecutive patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% and sinus rhythm following TAVR received transthoracic echocardiography at index discharge. The ideal heart rate was calculated using a formula: 93 - 0.13 × (deceleration time [ms]). Those whose actual heart rates at discharge were within 10 bpm of the calculated ideal heart rate were assigned to the optimal heart rate group, and their prognosis was compared with those without. Twenty-four patients (83 [78, 85] years old, LVEF 41% [35%, 44%], 16 males) were included. The median difference between actual heart rate and ideal heart rate was 12 (0, 16) bpm and 11 patients were assigned to the optimal heart rate group. One year later, the optimal heart rate group achieved more improvement in LVEF (24% [15%, 28%] vs. 7% [7%, 12%], p = .003) and had lower heart failure readmission rates (0.059 vs. 0.116 events/year; p = .49). In conclusion, an optimal heart rate might be associated with cardiac reverse remodeling and prevention of heart failure recurrences in patients with systolic dysfunction following TAVR. The implication of deceleration time-guided heart rate optimization therapy for such cohorts remains the next concern.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Imamura et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Systolic dysfunction following TAVR (n=24). Optimal heart rate (within 10 bpm of calculated ideal heart rate) vs. Non-optimal heart rate was evaluated on Improvement in LVEF (p=0.003). An optimal heart rate at discharge (within 10 bpm of ideal) was associated with greater improvement in LVEF at 1 year compared to a non-optimal heart rate (24% vs. 7%, p=0.003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: