Dataset Information

Association between atrial fibrillation and bundle branch block.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The association between atrial fibrillation (Afib) and sinus and AV nodal dysfunction has previously been reported. However, no data are available regarding the association between Afib and bundle branch block (BBB).

Methods

Patient data were obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database between years 2009 and 2015. Patients with a diagnosis of Afib and BBB were identified using validated International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, and Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes. Statistical analysis using the chi-square test and multivariate linear regression analysis were performed to determine the association between Afib and BBB.

Results

The total number of patients with BBB was 3,116,204 (1.5%). Patients with BBB had a mean age of 73.5 ± 13.5 years, 53.6% were males, 39.1% belonged to the age group ≥80 years, and 72.9% were Caucasians. The prevalence of Afib was higher in the BBB group, as compared to the non-BBB group (29% vs 11.8%, p value<.001). This association remained significant in multivariate regression analysis with an odds ratio of 1.25 (CI: 1.24-1.25, P < .001). Among the subtypes of BBB, Afib was comparatively more associated with RBBB (1.32, CI 1.31-1.33, p value<.0001) than LBBB (1.17, CI 1.16-1.18, p value<.0001). The mean cost was higher among Afib with BBB, compared with Afib patients without BBB ($15 795 vs $14 391, p value<.0001). There was no significant difference in the mean length of stay (5.6 vs 5.9 days, p value<.0001) or inpatient mortality (4.9% vs 4.8%).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that prevalence of Afib is higher in patients with BBB than without BBB. Cost are higher for Afib patients with BBB, compared to those without BBB, with no significant increase in mortality or length of stay.

SUBMITTER: Khan MZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8339096 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:A significant number of right bundle branch block (RBBB) patients receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), despite lack of evidence for benefit in this patient group. His bundle (HBP) and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel CRT delivery methods, but their effect on RBBB remains understudied. We aim to compare pacing-induced electrical synchrony during conventional CRT, HBP, and LBP in RBBB patients with different conduction disturbances, and to investigate whether alternative ways of delivering LBP improve response to pacing. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart geometries each including a His-Purkinje system with proximal right bundle branch block (RBBB). We simulated RBBB combined with left anterior and posterior fascicular blocks (LAFB and LPFB). Additionally, RBBB was simulated in the presence of slow conduction velocity (CV) in the myocardium, left ventricular (LV) or right ventricular (RV) His-Purkinje system, and whole His-Purkinje system. Electrical synchrony was measured by the shortest interval to activate 90% of the ventricles (BIVAT-90). Compared to baseline, HBP significantly improved activation times for RBBB alone (BIVAT-90: 66.9 ± 5.5 ms vs. 42.6 ± 3.8 ms, p < 0.01), with LAFB (69.5 ± 5.0 ms vs. 58.1 ± 6.2 ms, p < 0.01), with LPFB (81.8 ± 6.6 ms vs. 62.9 ± 6.2 ms, p < 0.01), with slow myocardial CV (119.4 ± 11.4 ms vs. 97.2 ± 10.0 ms, p < 0.01) or slow CV in the whole His-Purkinje system (102.3 ± 7.0 ms vs. 75.5 ± 5.2 ms, p < 0.01). LBP was only effective in RBBB cases if combined with anodal capture of the RV septum myocardium (BIVAT-90: 66.9 ± 5.5 ms vs. 48.2 ± 5.2 ms, p < 0.01). CRT significantly reduced activation times in RBBB in the presence of severely slow RV His-Purkinje CV (95.1 ± 7.9 ms vs. 84.3 ± 9.3 ms, p < 0.01) and LPFB (81.8 ± 6.6 ms vs. CRT: 72.9 ± 8.6 ms, p < 0.01). Both CRT and HBP were ineffective with severely slow CV in the LV His-Purkinje system. HBP is effective in RBBB patients with otherwise healthy myocardium and Purkinje system, while CRT and LBP are ineffective. Response to LBP improves when LBP is combined with RV septum anodal capture. CRT is better than HBP only in patients with severely slow CV in the RV His-Purkinje system, while CV slowing of the whole His-Purkinje system and the myocardium favor HBP over CRT.

Project description:CONTEXT:Although the heritability of atrial fibrillation (AF) is established, the contribution of familial AF to predicting new-onset AF remains unknown. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether familial occurrence of AF is associated with new-onset AF beyond established risk factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:The Framingham Heart Study, a prospective community-based cohort study started in 1948. Original and Offspring Cohort participants were aged at least 30 years, were free of AF at the baseline examination, and had at least 1 parent or sibling enrolled in the study. The 4421 participants in this analysis (mean age, 54 [SD, 13] years; 54% women) were followed up through December 31, 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Incremental predictive value of incorporating different features of familial AF (any familial AF, premature familial AF [onset ?65 years old], number of affected relatives, and youngest age of onset in a relative) into a risk model for new-onset AF. RESULTS:Across 11,971 examinations during the period 1968-2007, 440 participants developed AF. Familial AF occurred among 1185 participants (26.8%) and premature familial AF occurred among 351 participants (7.9%). Atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently among participants with familial AF than without familial AF (unadjusted absolute event rates of 5.8% and 3.1%, respectively). The association was not attenuated by adjustment for AF risk factors (multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.74) or reported AF-related genetic variants. Among the different features of familial AF examined, premature familial AF was associated with improved discrimination beyond traditional risk factors to the greatest extent (traditional risk factors, C statistic, 0.842 [95% CI, 0.826-0.858]; premature familial AF, C statistic, 0.846 [95% CI, 0.831-0.862]; P = .004). Modest changes in integrated discrimination improvement were observed with premature familial AF (2.1%). Net reclassification improvement (assessed using 8-year risk thresholds of <5%, 5%-10%, and >10%) did not change significantly with premature familial AF (index statistic, 0.011; 95% CI, -0.021 to 0.042; P = .51), although categoryless net reclassification was improved (index statistic, 0.127; 95% CI, 0.064-0.189; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS:In this cohort, familial AF was associated with an increased risk of AF that was not attenuated by adjustment for AF risk factors including genetic variants. Assessment of premature familial AF was associated with a very slight increase in predictive accuracy compared with traditional risk factors.