4.6 Article

Increased muscle sympathetic nerve activity predicts mortality in heart failure patients

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 135, 期 3, 页码 302-307

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2008.03.056

关键词

Heart failure; Muscle sympathetic nerve activity; Forearm blood flow; Mortality rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Previous studies have associated neurohumoral excitation, as estimated by plasma norepinephrine levels, with increased mortality in heart failure. However, the prognostic value of neurovascular interplay in heart failure (HF) is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that the muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) and forearm blood flow would predict mortality in chronic heart failure patients. Methods: One hundred and twenty two heart failure patients, NYHA II-IV, age 50 +/- 1 ys, LVEF 33 +/- 1%, and LVDD 7.1 +/- 0.2 mm, were followed up for one year. MSNA was directly measured from the peroneal nerve by microneurography. Forearm blood flow was obtained by venous occlusion plethysmography. The variables were analyzed by using univariate, stepwise multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, and Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: After one year, 34 pts died from cardiac death. The univariate analysis showed that MSNA, forearm blood flow, LVDD, LVEF, and heart rate were significant predictors of mortality. The multivariate analysis showed that only MSNA (P = 0.001) and forearm blood flow (P = 0.003) were significant independent predictors of mortality. On the basis of median levels of MSNA, survival rate was significantly lower in pts with >49 bursts/min. Similarly, survival rate was significantly lower in pts with forearm blood flow <1.87 ml/min/100 ml (P = 0.002). Conclusion: MSNA and forearm blood flow predict mortality rate in patients with heart failure. It remains unknown whether therapies that specifically target these abnormalities will improve survival in heart failure. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据