BACKGROUND: Elevated resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Assessment of heart rate (HR) from Holter recording may afford a more precise estimate of the effect of RHR on cardiovascular risk, as compared to casual RHR. Comparative analysis was carried out in an age-stratified subsample of 131 subjects in the Copenhagen City Heart Study (CCHS). METHODS: Casual RHR was assessed from electrocardiograms recorded during clinical assessment. Hourly daytime HRs were mapped by Holter recording. Holter RHR was defined as the average of the lowest 3 hourly HRs recorded and mean HR calculated from all daytime HRs. Follow-up was recorded from public registers. Outcome measure was hazard rate for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal heart failure and non-fatal acute myocardial infarction. Comparison of casual RHR, Holter RHR and mean HR by Multivariate Cox regression was performed. RESULTS: A total of 57 composite endpoints occurred during 17.1 years of follow-up. Regression analysis suggests correlation between Casual RHR and Holter RHR. Multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for gender and age demonstrated hazard rates of 1.02 (p = 0.079) for casual RHR, 1.04 (p = 0.036*) for Holter RHR, and 1.03 (p = 0.093) for mean HR for each 10 beat increment in HR. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparative analysis on the correlation and significance of differing RHR measurement modalities RHR measured by 24-hour Holter recording was found to be marginally superior as a predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The results presented here do not however warrant the abandonment of a tested epidemiological variable.
BACKGROUND: Elevated resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Assessment of heart rate (HR) from Holter recording may afford a more precise estimate of the effect of RHR on cardiovascular risk, as compared to casual RHR. Comparative analysis was carried out in an age-stratified subsample of 131 subjects in the Copenhagen City Heart Study (CCHS). METHODS: Casual RHR was assessed from electrocardiograms recorded during clinical assessment. Hourly daytime HRs were mapped by Holter recording. Holter RHR was defined as the average of the lowest 3 hourly HRs recorded and mean HR calculated from all daytime HRs. Follow-up was recorded from public registers. Outcome measure was hazard rate for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal heart failure and non-fatal acute myocardial infarction. Comparison of casual RHR, Holter RHR and mean HR by Multivariate Cox regression was performed. RESULTS: A total of 57 composite endpoints occurred during 17.1 years of follow-up. Regression analysis suggests correlation between Casual RHR and Holter RHR. Multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for gender and age demonstrated hazard rates of 1.02 (p = 0.079) for casual RHR, 1.04 (p = 0.036*) for Holter RHR, and 1.03 (p = 0.093) for mean HR for each 10 beat increment in HR. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparative analysis on the correlation and significance of differing RHR measurement modalities RHR measured by 24-hour Holter recording was found to be marginally superior as a predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The results presented here do not however warrant the abandonment of a tested epidemiological variable.
Authors: Marlena V Habal; Kumaraswamy Nanthakumar; Peter C Austin; Cassandra Freitas; Christopher Labos; Douglas S Lee Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Marten E van den Berg; Helen R Warren; Claudia P Cabrera; Niek Verweij; Borbala Mifsud; Jeffrey Haessler; Nathan A Bihlmeyer; Yi-Ping Fu; Stefan Weiss; Henry J Lin; Niels Grarup; Ruifang Li-Gao; Giorgio Pistis; Nabi Shah; Jennifer A Brody; Martina Müller-Nurasyid; Honghuang Lin; Hao Mei; Albert V Smith; Leo-Pekka Lyytikäinen; Leanne M Hall; Jessica van Setten; Stella Trompet; Bram P Prins; Aaron Isaacs; Farid Radmanesh; Jonathan Marten; Aiman Entwistle; Jan A Kors; Claudia T Silva; Alvaro Alonso; Joshua C Bis; Rudolf de Boer; Hugoline G de Haan; Renée de Mutsert; George Dedoussis; Anna F Dominiczak; Alex S F Doney; Patrick T Ellinor; Ruben N Eppinga; Stephan B Felix; Xiuqing Guo; Yanick Hagemeijer; Torben Hansen; Tamara B Harris; Susan R Heckbert; Paul L Huang; Shih-Jen Hwang; Mika Kähönen; Jørgen K Kanters; Ivana Kolcic; Lenore J Launer; Man Li; Jie Yao; Allan Linneberg; Simin Liu; Peter W Macfarlane; Massimo Mangino; Andrew D Morris; Antonella Mulas; Alison D Murray; Christopher P Nelson; Marco Orrú; Sandosh Padmanabhan; Annette Peters; David J Porteous; Neil Poulter; Bruce M Psaty; Lihong Qi; Olli T Raitakari; Fernando Rivadeneira; Carolina Roselli; Igor Rudan; Naveed Sattar; Peter Sever; Moritz F Sinner; Elsayed Z Soliman; Timothy D Spector; Alice V Stanton; Kathleen E Stirrups; Kent D Taylor; Martin D Tobin; André Uitterlinden; Ilonca Vaartjes; Arno W Hoes; Peter van der Meer; Uwe Völker; Melanie Waldenberger; Zhijun Xie; Magdalena Zoledziewska; Andrew Tinker; Ozren Polasek; Jonathan Rosand; Yalda Jamshidi; Cornelia M van Duijn; Eleftheria Zeggini; J Wouter Jukema; Folkert W Asselbergs; Nilesh J Samani; Terho Lehtimäki; Vilmundur Gudnason; James Wilson; Steven A Lubitz; Stefan Kääb; Nona Sotoodehnia; Mark J Caulfield; Colin N A Palmer; Serena Sanna; Dennis O Mook-Kanamori; Panos Deloukas; Oluf Pedersen; Jerome I Rotter; Marcus Dörr; Chris J O'Donnell; Caroline Hayward; Dan E Arking; Charles Kooperberg; Pim van der Harst; Mark Eijgelsheim; Bruno H Stricker; Patricia B Munroe Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 6.150