4.7 Article

Physical activity, resting heart rate, and atrial fibrillation: the Tromso Study

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 37, 期 29, 页码 2307-2313

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw059

关键词

Exercise; Physical activity; Atrial fibrillation; Resting heart rate; Arrhythmia

资金

  1. Northern Norway Regional Health Authority [SFP1091-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims The objective was to examine the association of physical activity and resting heart rate (RHR) with hospital-diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) in a Norwegian cohort. Methods and results This prospective study included 20 484 adults (50.3% men) who participated in the third Tromso Study survey in 1986-87. At baseline, physical activity was assessed by a validated questionnaire, and RHR was objectively measured. Participants were followed from baseline through 2010 with respect to incident cases of hospital-diagnosed AF documented on an electrocardiogram. During a mean follow-up period of 20 years (409 045 person-years), 750 participants (70.5% men) were diagnosed with AF. Compared with the low physical activity group, moderately active individuals had a 19% lower risk of any AF [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.97], whereas highly active had similar risk of AF. Vigorously active individuals showed a non-significantly higher risk of AF (adjusted HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77-2.43). Risk of AF increased with decreasing RHR (adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-0.98 for each 10 b.p.m. increase in RHR), and RHR, 50 b.p.m. was a risk factor for AF (P < 0.05). Conclusion In this prospective cohort study, leisure time physical activity was associated with AF in a J-shaped pattern. Moderate physical activity was associated with a reduced risk of AF, whereas higher activity levels attenuated the benefits of moderate activity. Low RHR was a risk factor for AF. Our results support the hypothesis that moderate and vigorous physical activity may affect AF risk via different pathophysiological mechanisms.

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

4.7
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