ArticleBosnian journal of basic medical sciences2013
Signaling prodromes of sudden cardiac death.
Article in Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The new criteria in detection of ARVC/D produced more subtle noninvasive parameters that raised sensitivity in diagnosis. Since heart rate dynamics have prognostic significance for the progression of a disease and for mortality, the main objective was to explore its value in disclosing risk for serious arrhythmias. Out of 100 ARVC/D patients, 35 with normal ECG Holter recordings (PVC<100) and no medical treatment (either antiarrhythmic or proarrhythmic drugs) were analyzed according to severity of ARVC/D (Group 1/mild, n=23 and Group 2/overt, n=12) and regarding positive late potentials (noise interval between 0.1-0.3 μV). Severity of ARVC/D is defined: group 1 with no clinical recognizable signs and group 2 with clinical readily recognizable signs. Group 3 (control) consisted of 35 randomly assigned healthy subjects. The differences between the 3 groups were assessed by ANOVA followed by Bonferroni`s post hoc multiple-range tests. NLD methods, as opposed to linear time and frequency, show very significant differences between investigated groups vs. control. NLD methods by mean of the standard deviations of all NN intervals of sinus beats for all 5-minute segments (SDNN index) showed prevalence of parasympathetic activity as opposed to control. This was even more obvious through interpolation of data as % of deviation of Mean NN interval in function % frequency (p<0.005). NLD methods describe complex rhythm fluctuations in ARVC/D patients that put insight at proarrhythmic potential of affected subjects. Furthermore, in combination with late potentials they improve recognizing hidden risks for serious arrhythmias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.