Predictive Value of P-Wave Signal-Averaged Electrocardiogram for Atrial Fibrillation in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with a reported incidence of 7–18%. Recently, P‐wave signal‐averaged electrocardiogram (P‐SAECG) has been used to assess the risk of paroxysmal AF attacks in some diseases. The aim of this study was to...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology 2003-07, Vol.8 (3), p.233-237
Hauptverfasser: Çiçek, Dilek, Çamsari, Ahmet, Pekdemir, Hasan, Kiykim, Ahmet, Akkuş, Necdet, Sezer, Kerem, Diker, Erdem
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with a reported incidence of 7–18%. Recently, P‐wave signal‐averaged electrocardiogram (P‐SAECG) has been used to assess the risk of paroxysmal AF attacks in some diseases. The aim of this study was to determine prospectively whether patients with AMI at risk for paroxysmal AF would be identified by P‐SAECG and other clinical variables. Methods: A total of 100 patients (mean age: 59 ± 12, 77 male, 23 female) with ST segment elevation AMI were enrolled in this study. Patients with chronic AF were excluded. At entry, all patients underwent standard 12‐lead ECG and in the first 24 hours, P‐SAECG was taken, and echocardiography and coronary angiography were performed on the patients. Patients are followed for a month in terms of paroxysmal AF attacks and mortality. Results: AF was determined in 19 patients (19%). In patients with AF, abnormal P‐SAECG more frequently occurred than in patients without AF (37% vs 15%, P < 0.05). Patients with AF were older (70 ± 14 vs 56 ± 10, P < 0.001) and had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (42%± 8 vs 49%± 11, P < 0.05). AF was less common in thrombolysis‐treated patients (47% vs 74%, P
ISSN:1082-720X
1542-474X
DOI:10.1046/j.1542-474X.2003.08311.x