ECG-guided antiarrhythmic therapy reduced 6-month MACE rate from 32.5% to 13.75% compared to conventional therapy in ACS patients with arrhythmias.
Observational
Yes
Does an ECG-guided antiarrhythmic strategy improve biomarker profiles, cardiac function, and quality of life in patients with acute coronary syndrome and arrhythmias?
160 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and arrhythmias (n=80 in observation group, n=80 propensity score-matched controls)
ECG-guided antiarrhythmic strategy using a monitor-alert-response-titration pathway
Conventional experience-based antiarrhythmic therapy
Serum biomarkers (NT-proBNP, hs-cTnI, hs-cTnT, hs-CRP), cardiac function (LVEF, LVEDD, LVEDVI, E/e′), and quality of life (SAQ, 6MWT)
Implementing an ECG-guided monitor-alert-response-titration pathway for antiarrhythmic therapy in ACS patients improves arrhythmia control, cardiac function, and reduces 6-month MACE.
Objective: To evaluate the impact of electrocardiogram (ECG)-guided antiarrhythmic strategy on serum biomarkers, cardiac function, and quality of life in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and arrhythmias. Methods: This prospective observational cohort enrolled 80 ACS patients with arrhythmias managed via a monitor-alert-response-titration pathway (observation group) during January-December 2024. Propensity score-matched controls (n = 80) received conventional experience-based antiarrhythmic therapy. Comparisons included in-hospital antiarrhythmic interventions, arrhythmia control, adverse events, and myocardial injury/stress biomarkers (NT-proBNP, hs-cTnI, hs-cTnT, hs-CRP) at T0 (baseline), T1 (2-day), and T2 (7-day). Cardiac function (LVEF, LVEDD, LVEDVI, E/e′) and patient-reported outcomes Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) were assessed at T0, T3 (1-month), and T4 (6-month). Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were recorded over 6 months. Results: The observation group demonstrated higher β-blocker utilization, guideline adherence, and drug adjustment rates ( P < 0.05). Arrhythmia control was superior in the observation group at T2 (93.75% vs 82.50%, P < 0.05). More pronounced reductions in all biomarkers were observed in the observation group at T1 and T2 ( P < 0.05). Greater improvements in LVEF, LVEDD, LVEDVI, E/e′, SAQ scores, and 6MWT distance were sustained in the observation group at T3 and T4 ( P < 0.05). The 6-month MACE rate was lower in the observation group (13.75% vs 32.50%, P < 0.05). Conclusion: ECG-guided antiarrhythmic therapy improves pharmacotherapy quality and arrhythmia control, accelerating myocardial injury and stress attenuation. This strategy approach enhances cardiac recovery, reverse remodeling, functional capacity, and quality of life, ultimately reducing long-term cardiovascular risk. Keywords: acute coronary syndrome, ECG-guided antiarrhythmic therapy, cardiac function, biomarkers, quality of life
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Xiaolong Li
Xianfeng Liu
Ming Jing
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
Kunming Medical University
The Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture
Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Li et al. (Sun,) conducted a observational in Patients aged 18-80 years with acute coronary syndrome (STEMI, NSTEMI, unstable angina) and clinically significant arrhythmias presenting within 24 hours of symptom onset (n=160). ECG-guided antiarrhythmic therapy with a monitor-alert-response-titration pathway vs. Conventional experience-based antiarrhythmic therapy was evaluated on 6-month major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) rate (cardiac death, non-fatal MI, rehospitalization for UA or heart failure, unplanned revascularization, malignant arrhythmic events) (ARR 18.75%, p=<0.05). ECG-guided antiarrhythmic therapy reduced 6-month MACE rate from 32.5% to 13.75% compared to conventional therapy in ACS patients with arrhythmias.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69a767efbadf0bb9e87e2f56 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.s583212