Intermittent Normal Ventricular Conduction in Left Bundle Branch Block After TAVR
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cecchini E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10240264 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimsLeft bundle branch block (LBBB) is the most common conduction disorder after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with an increased risk of atrioventricular (AV) block. The aim of the current study was to identify non-invasive predictors for infranodal conduction delay in patients with LBBB.MethodsWe analyzed consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with pre-existing or new-onset LBBB between August 2014 and August 2020. His ventricular (HV) interval measurement was performed on day 1 after TAVR. Baseline, procedural, as well as surface and intracardiac electrocardiographic parameters were included. Infranodal conduction delay was defined as HV interval > 55 ms.ResultsOf 825 patients screened after TAVR, 151 patients (82 ± 6 years, 39% male) with LBBB were included. Among these, infranodal conduction delay was observed in 25%. ΔPR (difference in PR interval after and before TAVR), PR and QRS duration after TAVR were significantly longer in the group with HV prolongation. In a multivariate analysis in patients with sinus rhythm (n = 123), ΔPR (OR per 10 ms increase: 1.52; 95%CI: 1.19-2.01; p = 0.002) was the only independent factor associated with infranodal conduction delay. A change in PR interval by 20 ms yielded a specificity of 83% and a sensitivity of 46%, with a negative predictive value of 84% and a positive predictive value of 45% to predict HV prolongation.ConclusionsSimple analysis of surface ECG and a calculated ΔPR < 20 ms can be used as predictor for the absence of infranodal conduction delay in post-TAVR patients with LBBB.
| S-EPMC8639549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComplete bundle branch block in individuals without structural heart disease is known as isolated complete bundle branch block. Isolated complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB) is correlated with ventricular dysfunction secondary to dyssynchrony; however, few studies have investigated isolated complete right bundle branch block (CRBBB), which was previously considered benign but was recently found to be associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate cardiac mechanical synchrony, and systolic and diastolic function in patients with isolated CRBBB and compare cardiac synchrony and function to patients with isolated CLBBB.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted at The First Hospital of China Medical University in Shenyang, China, from 2020 to 2021. A total of 44 isolated CRBBB patients, 44 isolated CLBBB patients, and 42 healthy subjects were enrolled in the study. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed in all subjects. Synchrony parameters, including the mechanical dispersion of the right ventricle [the standard deviation of time to the peak longitudinal strain of six right ventricular (RV) segments] and atrioventricular dyssynchrony parameter [the ratio of left ventricular (LV) diastolic filling time to the time interval between two adjacent R waves (RR interval) measured by tissue Doppler imaging]. RV and LV function were assessed by the global longitudinal strain (GLS) of six RV segments and 18 LV segments, and the ratio of the peak early diastolic flow velocity to annular velocity (E/e') of the tricuspid valve and mitral valve. Statistical analyses were performed, including an analysis of variance, Pearson correlation analysis, and linear regression analysis.ResultsCompared with the healthy subjects, the mechanical dispersion of the right ventricle was significantly increased, and ventricular function was impaired as evidenced by the decreased RV GLS and LV GLS, and the increased E/e' of the tricuspid valve and mitral valve in the isolated CRBBB patients (all P<0.001). Moreover, compared with the isolated CLBBB patients, the mechanical dispersion of the right ventricle and E/e' of the tricuspid valve were increased, and RV GLS was significantly reduced in the isolated CRBBB patients (all P<0.001). Mechanical dispersion of the right ventricle was independently associated with RV GLS [coefficient, 0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.004-0.26; P=0.04] in the isolated CRBBB patients. RV GLS (coefficient, 0.10; 95% CI: 0.01-0.20; P=0.03) and the ratio of the LV diastolic filling time to the RR interval measured (coefficient, -0.30; 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.07; P=0.01) were independent factors of LV GLS.ConclusionsThe isolated CRBBB patients had impaired cardiac mechanical synchrony and ventricular function, and more decreased RV synchrony and function than the isolated CLBBB patients. Right intraventricular synchrony was independently associated with RV systolic dysfunction in patients with isolated CRBBB. Atrioventricular synchrony and RV systolic function were independently associated with the LV systolic function. Therefore, comprehensive evaluations of echocardiography results and close monitoring is required for isolated CRBBB patients.
| S-EPMC11320498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo evaluate ventricular synchronization and function in patients with right bundle-branch block after left bundle-branch-area pacing (LBBAP) by echocardiography.MethodsForty patients who successfully received LBBAP were selected and divided into the right bundle-branch block group (RBBB group) and the non-RBBB group by pre-operation ECG. Echocardiography and follow-up were performed 1 month after operation. Interventricular synchronization was evaluated by tissue Doppler (TDI), tissue mitral annular displacement (TMAD), and interventricular mechanical delay. The tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), right ventricular fractional area change (RVFAC), tricuspid annulus sidewall systolic velocity (TV-s'), left ventricular global ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS), right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (LS-RV), standard deviation of left ventricular 18 segments peak time difference (SDt-L) and standard deviation of right ventricular free wall 3 segments peak time difference (SDt-R) were applied to evaluate intraventricular synchronization and ventricular function.ResultsThe difference of displacement peak time of the tricuspid and mitral valves, namely ΔPTTV-MV measured by TMAD, the difference of systolic time to peak of the tricuspid and mitral valves, namely ΔTsTV-MV measured by TDI, were statistically different between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the non-RBBB group, there were no statistically significant differences in the GLS, RVFAC, LS-RV, TAPSE, TV-s', SDt-L, SDt-R (P > 0.05).ConclusionEchocardiography technology including two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI), TDI, and TMAD can effectively analyze interventricular synchronization, intraventricular synchronization, and ventricular function. Although the movement of the right ventricular myocardium in the RBBB group was slightly later than that of the left ventricular myocardium after LBBAP, LBBAP could still be applied in RBBB patients with pacing indication.
| S-EPMC9394046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chest pain may be rarely associated with left bundle branch block (LBBB)-mediated ventricular dys-synchrony has been reported. This article reports 2 such cases, where left bundle branch area pacing resulted in resolution of the LBBB and associated symptoms. By adjusting the atrioventricular delays, the QRS duration was narrowed further by achieving fusion with the intrinsic activation wavefront. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.).
| S-EPMC8298553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe present study aimed to compare the effects of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) on cardiac function and clinical outcomes in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35 vs. ≤35%.Methods and resultsThirty-six consecutive patients with LBBB and LVEF <50% were enrolled. All patients were followed up for a mean of 6 months. The successful LBBAP was defined as a paced QRS complex presented as right bundle branch block (RBBB) morphology and QRSd < 130 ms. Echocardiography parameters, pacing parameters and clinical outcomes were collected. The successful LBBAP was achieved in 77.8% of all cases (28/36). In LVEF > 35% group (70 ± 8 years, 9 male), the success rate was 81.0% (17/21). QRSd significantly decreased from 174 ± 23 ms to 108 ± 13 ms (P < 0.001). The pacing threshold and R-wave amplitude were 0.6 ± 0.2 V @ 0.5 ms and 12 ± 7 mV, respectively. In LVEF ≤ 35% group (69 ± 5 years, 9 male), the success rate was 73.3% (11/15) with QRSd decreasing from 188 ± 25 ms to 107 ± 11 ms (P < 0.001). The hyperresponders to LBBAP (functional recovery and LVEF ≥ 50%) in LVEF > 35% group was 52.9%, which were almost twice of that in LVEF ≤ 35% group (33.3%). Whether patients had LBBAP or left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), patients in the LVEF > 35% group showed significantly lower incidence of heart failure hospitalizations or death from any cause (hazard ratio in LVEF > 35% group, 0.22; 95%CI, 0.06 to 0.75, P = 0.011).ConclusionsLBBAP can significantly shorten the QRSd and improve cardiac function in LBBB patients with either LVEF > 35 or ≤ 35%. LBBAP should be considered as an effective therapy for preventing the deterioration of cardiac function in early-stage heart failure patients with LBBB and LVEF > 35%.
| S-EPMC8968131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) often respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement. Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), not CRT, is first-line therapy for patients with reduced LVEF with LBBB. However, there are little data on how patients with reduced LVEF and LBBB respond to GDMT.ObjectivesThis study examined patients with cardiomyopathy and sought to assess rates of LVEF improvement for patients with LBBB compared to other QRS morphologies.MethodsUsing data from the Duke Echocardiography Laboratory Database, the study identified patients with baseline electrocardiography and LVEF ≤35% who had a follow-up LVEF 3 to 6 months later. The study excluded patients with severe valve disease, a cardiac device, left ventricular assist device, or heart transplant. QRS morphology was classified as LBBB, QRS duration <120 ms (narrow QRS duration), or a wide QRS duration ≥120 ms but not LBBB. Analysis of variance testing compared mean change in LVEF among the 3 groups with adjustment for significant comorbidities and GDMT.ResultsThere were 659 patients that met the criteria: 111 LBBB (17%), 59 wide QRS duration ≥120 ms but not LBBB (9%), and 489 narrow QRS duration (74%). Adjusted mean increase in LVEF over 3 to 6 months in the 3 groups was 2.03%, 5.28%, and 8.00%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Results were similar when adjusted for interim revascularization and myocardial infarction. Comparison of mean LVEF improvement between patients with LBBB on GDMT and those not on GDMT showed virtually no difference (3.50% vs. 3.44%). The combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or mortality was highest for patients with LBBB.ConclusionsLBBB is associated with a smaller degree of LVEF improvement compared with other QRS morphologies, even with GDMT. Some patients with LBBB may benefit from CRT earlier than guidelines currently recommend.
| S-EPMC8352572 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A 53-year-old man with depressed ejection fraction (EF) of 35% and QRS width of 88 ms at rest was admitted to our institution with a complaint of exertional chest discomfort and dyspnea. During treadmill exercise, left bundle-branch block (LBBB) with a QRS width of 152 ms occurred at a heart rate of 100 bpm. During LBBB, the patient showed significant mechanical dyssynchrony as evidenced by a two-dimensional speckle tracking radial strain of 260 ms (? 130 ms), defined as the time difference between anterior-septum and posterior wall. Five-month after carvedilol and candesartan administration, EF had improved to 49% and LBBB did not occur until a heart rate of 126 bpm was attained during treadmill exercise. It appears that pharmacological therapy may be useful for patients with heart failure and exercise-induced LBBB.
| S-EPMC3044107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNew-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) following transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (LBBBAVI) implies a proximal pathogenesis of LBBB. This study compares electrocardiographic characteristics and concordance with LBBB definitions between LBBBAVI and non-procedure-induced LBBB controls (LBBBcontrol).MethodsAll LBBBAVI patients at Ghent University Hospital between 2013 and 2019 were enrolled in the study. LBBBAVI patients were matched for age, sex, ischaemic heart disease and ejection fraction to LBBBcontrol patients in a 1:2 ratio. For inclusion, a non-strict LBBB definition was used (QRS duration ≥ 120 ms, QS or rS in V1, absence of Q waves in V5-6). Electrocardiograms were digitally analysed and classified according to three LBBB definitions: European Society of Cardiology (ESC), Strauss and American Heart Association (AHA).ResultsA total of 177 patients (59 LBBBAVI and 118 LBBBcontrol) were enrolled in the study. LBBBAVI patients had more lateral QRS notching/slurring (100% vs 85%, p = 0.001), included a higher percentage with a QRS duration ≥ 130 ms (98% vs 86%, p = 0.007) and had a less leftward oriented QRS axis (-15° vs -30°, p = 0.013) compared to the LBBBcontrol group. ESC and Strauss criteria were fulfilled in 100% and 95% of LBBBAVI patients, respectively, but only 18% met the AHA criteria. In LBBBcontrol patients, concordance with LBBB definitions was lower than in the LBBBAVI group: ESC 85% (p = 0.001), Strauss 68% (p < 0.001) and AHA 7% (p = 0.035). No differences in electrocardiographic characterisation or concordance with LBBB definitions were observed between LBBBAVI and LBBBcontrol patients with lateral QRS notching/slurring.ConclusionNon-uniformity exists among current LBBB definitions concerning the detection of proximal LBBB. LBBBAVI may provide a framework for more consensus on defining proximal LBBB.
| S-EPMC8630173 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7156986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:QRS narrowing following cardiac resynchronization therapy with biventricular (BiV) or left ventricular (LV) pacing is likely affected by patient-specific conduction characteristics (PR, qLV, LV-paced propagation interval), making a universal programming strategy likely ineffective. We tested these factors using a novel, device-based algorithm (SyncAV) that automatically adjusts paced atrioventricular delay (default or programmable offset) according to intrinsic atrioventricular conduction. METHODS AND RESULTS:Seventy-five patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (age 66±11 years; 65% male; 32% with ischemic cardiomyopathy; LV ejection fraction 28±8%; QRS duration 162±16 ms) with intact atrioventricular conduction (PR interval 194±34, range 128-300 ms), left bundle branch block, and optimized LV lead position were studied at implant. QRS duration (QRSd) reduction was compared for the following pacing configurations: nominal simultaneous BiV (Mode I: paced/sensed atrioventricular delay=140/110 ms), BiV+SyncAV with 50 ms offset (Mode II), BiV+SyncAV with offset that minimized QRSd (Mode III), or LV-only pacing+SyncAV with 50 ms offset (Mode IV). The intrinsic QRSd (162±16 ms) was reduced to 142±17 ms (-11.8%) by Mode I, 136±14 ms (-15.6%) by Mode IV, and 132±13 ms (-17.8%) by Mode II. Mode III yielded the shortest overall QRSd (123±12 ms, -23.9% [P<0.001 versus all modes]) and was the only configuration without QRSd prolongation in any patient. QRS narrowing occurred regardless of QRSd, PR, or LV-paced intervals, or underlying ischemic disease. CONCLUSIONS:Post-implant electrical optimization in already well-selected patients with left bundle branch block and optimized LV lead position is facilitated by patient-tailored BiV pacing adjusted to intrinsic atrioventricular timing using an automatic device-based algorithm.
| S-EPMC5850248 | biostudies-literature