Cargando…

Baseline intrinsic heart rate and response to ivabradine treatment in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia

BACKGROUND: Treatment with ivabradine became a new therapeutic alternative for patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST). The aim was to determine a relation between intrinsic heart rate (IHR) and response to ivabradine treatment. METHODS: Twenty‐seven patients (mean age 37 ± 11; 23 women)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaczmarek, Krzysztof, Klingenheben, Thomas, Poddebska, Izabela, Urbanek, Irmina, Wranicz, Jerzy K., Cygankiewicz, Iwona, Ptaszyński, Pawel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7358846/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31595620
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anec.12709
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Treatment with ivabradine became a new therapeutic alternative for patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST). The aim was to determine a relation between intrinsic heart rate (IHR) and response to ivabradine treatment. METHODS: Twenty‐seven patients (mean age 37 ± 11; 23 women) with symptomatic IST despite medical treatment were recruited into the study. Resting ECG, 24‐hr ECG monitoring (24hECG), exercise treadmill test, and symptoms evaluation were performed initially and after 60 days on ivabradine. IHR was acquired at baseline after pharmacological autonomic blockade. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (70%) were classified as abnormal IHR group (AIHR) while eight showed normal IHR (NIHR). No significant differences in ECG parameters were found between NIHR and AIHR subgroups, while baseline exercise capacity was higher in AIHR patients (10.9 vs. 9.5 METs, p < .05). Ivabradine treatment resulted in significant reduction in resting heart rate, average 24hECG heart rate, improvement in exercise capacity and reduction of symptoms in both subgroups. Nevertheless, favorable influence of ivabradine was significantly more exaggerated in AIHR subgroup (HR 116 vs. 90 bpm, av. HR 98 vs. 79 bpm, 10.9 vs. 13.6 METS, EHRA score 3.1 vs. 1.1, p < .001 for all) than in NIHR patients (HR 112 vs. 98 bpm, av. HR 97 vs. 88 bpm, 9.5 vs. 11.1 METs, EHRA score 3.1 vs. 1.9; p < .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Intrinsic heart rate may be useful in predicting response to ivabradine in patients with IST. More intense response to ivabradine in patients with AIHR may be attributed to different pathophysiological mechanisms underlying IST in AIHR and NIHR groups.