 |
|
Outcomes in Patients With Prolonged PR Interval or First-Degree Atrioventricular Block—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In Reply: Dr Oh and colleagues suggest adjusting for electrocardiographic LVH in our mortality analyses. When this variable was added as a covariate, we observed no change in the adjusted hazard ratio for mortality (1.08 per standard deviation increment in PR interval; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.13; P = .005). Although electrocardiographic LVH is a predictor of mortality, it was not significantly associated with PR interval in our data.
In response to Dr Doraiswamy, we note that 89% of the pacemakers were implanted for a primary indication of high-grade AV block or sinus node dysfunction. The other 11% were attributed to a variety of indications, including postoperative changes or myocardial infarction, with high-grade AV block or sinus node dysfunction often noted as a secondary indication. Analyses examining the relationship of specific conduction abnormalities with outcomes were limited by inadequate power. With regard to nodal-blocking agents, we excluded individuals using medications at baseline . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Susan Cheng, MD
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts
Thomas J. Wang, MD
tjwang@partners.org
Cardiology Division
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTERS
Outcomes in Patients With Prolonged PR Interval or First-Degree Atrioventricular Block
Jaewon Oh, Ho Youn Won, and Seok-Min Kang
JAMA. 2009;302(18):1967.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Outcomes in Patients With Prolonged PR Interval or First-Degree Atrioventricular Block
Vijay Arun Doraiswamy
JAMA. 2009;302(18):1967.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
