QTc Interval Predicts Disturbed Circadian Blood Pressure Variation.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between electrocardiographic evaluation and circadian blood pressure (BP) variation in young and middle-aged hypertensive patients remains unknown. METHODS: A total of 171 hypertensive patients were included in the study. First, patients were divided into a young and middle-aged group and an elderly group. The two groups were then separately classified into three subgroups on the basis of circadian variation of BP as dippers, non-dippers and reverse-dippers. The electrocardiographic evaluation was calculated from 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG). RESULTS: QTc intervals were shortest in the dippers and longest in the reverse-dippers in the young and middle-aged group (QTc dipper: 416.53±18.37ms; non-dipper: 438.30±29.71ms; reverse-dipper: 444.93±25.47ms; for dipper vs non-dipper, and dipper vs reverse-dipper P<0.05). QTc interval was found to be an independent risk factor for the non-dipper BP pattern (Odds ratio 1.049; 95% CI 1.01-1.089; P=0.012) and reverse-dipper BP pattern (Odds ratio 1.051; 95% CI 1.007-1.098; P=0.023) in young and middle-aged hypertensive patients. No significant differences in other ECG parameters were found among the three subgroups in the young and middle-aged group. CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that QTc interval might serve as a risk factor for non-dipper BP pattern and reverse-dipper BP pattern in young and middle-aged hypertensive patients.

Heart rate acceleration and deceleration capacities associated with circadian blood pressure variation.

BACKGROUND: Heart rate acceleration and deceleration capacities are novel parameters that can quantify sympathetic and vagal modulation. However, how acceleration and deceleration capacities associated with circadian blood pressure (BP) variation remains unknown. METHODS: A total of 141 patients with essential hypertension were included in our study. Based on the nocturnal decline rate of systolic BP (SBP), patients were divided into two groups, as dippers and nondippers. Baseline demographic characteristics, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) parameters, Holter recordings, and echocardiographic parameters were collected. RESULTS: The absolute values of acceleration capacity (AC) (-7.75 [-8.45 ~ -6.3] ms vs. -6.6 [-8.25 ~ -5.2] ms, p = .047) and deceleration capacity (DC) (7.35 [6.1 ~ 8.1] ms vs. 6.3 [5.1 ~ 7.6] ms, p = .042) were significantly higher in dippers than in nondippers. By multivariate logistic regression analysis, left atrial diameter (LAd) was found to be an independent risk factor for nondipper status in acceleration capacity model (odds ratio 1.174, 95% confidence interval 1.019-1.354, p = .027) and deceleration model (odds ratio 1.146, 95% confidence interval 1.003-1.309, p = .045). Sleep SBP was positively correlated to acceleration capacity (r = .256, p = .002) and negatively correlated to deceleration capacity (r = -.194, p = .021). CONCLUSIONS: The absolute values of acceleration capacity and deceleration capacity were higher in patients with dipper hypertension than in patients with nondipper hypertension. However, acceleration and deceleration capacities were not independent risk factors for blunted BP variation. Sleep SBP seemed to be better correlated to the impairment of autonomic nervous system (ANS) function than other ABPM parameters.

Heart acceleration and deceleration capacities associated with dilated cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Heart rate deceleration capacity and acceleration capacity are novel autonomic nervous system indicators of cardiac neural regulation. Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) changes cardiac electrophysiology; however, how deceleration capacity and acceleration capacity associated with DCM remain unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To evaluate the association between heart rate acceleration capacity, deceleration capacity and DCM, 66 DCM patients with DCM and 209 controls were enrolled in the study. Demographic data, echocardiographic data, heart rate variability, deceleration capacity and acceleration capacity were collected. The association pattern between DCM and these indexes were studied by multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Deceleration capacity and acceleration capacity were independent risk factors for DCM with an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), determined by multiple logistic regression analysis, of 7·97 (3·87-16·42) and 0·09 (0·05-0·19), respectively. Univariate ordinal logistic regression analysis showed that acceleration capacity, fastest heart rate, standard deviation of normal-to-normal RR intervals (SDNN) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LEVF) associated with heart failure grade. The OR for each covariate was further adjusted for the effects of other significant covariates in multivariate ordinal logistic regression analysis. Acceleration capacity, fastest heart rate and LVEF were still independent risk factors in the final equation with ORs of 1·32 (1·03-1·79), 1·04 (0·01-1·07) and 0·46 (0·23-0·93), respectively. CONCLUSION: Heart rate acceleration capacity and deceleration capacity are independent risk factors for DCM, and acceleration capacity is a predictive factor for heart failure exacerbation in patients with DCM.