Key result
One-year reassessment of post-MI noninvasive risk factors reveals stable overall prevalence despite individual profile changes.
Why the study?
Several noninvasive risk factors have been proposed for sudden cardiac death risk stratification in post-MI patients with preserved EF, but whether they change over time remains unclear.
Do noninvasive electrocardiographic risk factors for sudden cardiac death change over time in post-myocardial infarction patients with preserved ejection fraction?
Cohort (n=80)
Do noninvasive electrocardiographic risk factors for sudden cardiac death change over time in post-myocardial infarction patients with preserved ejection fraction?
Although the population-level prevalence of electrocardiographic risk factors for sudden cardiac death remains stable at 1 year post-MI, individual patient profiles change, suggesting a need for periodic reassessment.
NIRFs showed stable group prevalence but individual shifts over 1 year; leaves open whether serial reassessment refines SCD risk stratification in preserved-EF post-MI patients.
BACKGROUND: Several noninvasive risk factors (NIRFs) have been proposed for sudden cardiac death risk stratification in post-myocardial infarction (post-MI) patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF). However, it remains unclear if these factors change over time. METHODS: We evaluated seven electrocardiographic NIRFs as they were described in the PRESERVE-EF trial in 80 post-MI patients with EF ≥ 40%, at least 40 days after revascularization and 1 year later. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 56 ± 10 years, and 88% were men. Mean EF was 50 ± 5%. The prevalence of (a) positive late potentials (27.5% vs. 28.8%, p = .860), (b) >30 premature ventricular complexes/hour (8.8% vs. 11.3%, p = .598), (c) nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (8.8% vs. 5%, p = .349), (d) standard deviation of normal RR intervals <75 ms (3.8% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000), (e) QTc derived from 24-hr electrocardiography >440 ms (men) or >450 ms (women) (17.5% vs. 17.5%, p = 1.000), (f) deceleration capacity ≤4.5 ms and heart rate turbulence onset ≥0% and slope ≤2.5 ms (2.5% vs. 3.8%. p = 1.000), and (g) ambulatory T-wave alternans ≥65 μV in two Holter channels (6.3% vs. 6.3%, p = 1.000) were similar between the two measurements. However, five patients (6.3%) without any NIRFs during the first assessment had at least one positive NIRF at the second assessment and six patients (7.5%) with at least one NIRF at baseline had no positive NIRFs at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: While the prevalence of the examined electrocardiographic NIRFs between the two examinations was similar on a population basis, some patients without NIRFs at baseline developed NIRFs at 1 year and vice versa, highlighting the need for risk factor reassessment during follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xenogiannis et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in post-myocardial infarction with preserved ejection fraction (n=80). 1-year follow-up vs. Baseline assessment was evaluated on Positive late potentials (p=0.860). Reassessment of noninvasive risk factors at 1 year in post-MI patients showed similar overall prevalence to baseline (e.g., late potentials 28.8% vs 27.5%, p=0.860), but individual profiles changed.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: