Dataset Information

Aortic valve implantation-induced conduction block as a framework towards a uniform electrocardiographic definition of left bundle branch block.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

New-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) following transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (LBBB_AVI) implies a proximal pathogenesis of LBBB. This study compares electrocardiographic characteristics and concordance with LBBB definitions between LBBB_AVI and non-procedure-induced LBBB controls (LBBB_control).

Methods

All LBBB_AVI patients at Ghent University Hospital between 2013 and 2019 were enrolled in the study. LBBB_AVI patients were matched for age, sex, ischaemic heart disease and ejection fraction to LBBB_control 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).

Results

A total of 177 patients (59 LBBB_AVI and 118 LBBB_control) were enrolled in the study. LBBB_AVI 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 LBBB_control group. ESC and Strauss criteria were fulfilled in 100% and 95% of LBBB_AVI patients, respectively, but only 18% met the AHA criteria. In LBBB_control patients, concordance with LBBB definitions was lower than in the LBBB_AVI 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 LBBB_AVI and LBBB_control patients with lateral QRS notching/slurring.

Conclusion

Non-uniformity exists among current LBBB definitions concerning the detection of proximal LBBB. LBBB_AVI may provide a framework for more consensus on defining proximal LBBB.

SUBMITTER: Calle S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8630173 | 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.