Saara Sillanmäki1,2, Jukka A Lipponen3, Mika P Tarvainen4,3, Tiina Laitinen4, Marja Hedman5, Antti Hedman6, Antti Kivelä6, Hanna Hämäläinen4, Tomi Laitinen4,7. 1. Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Kuopio University Hospital, Puijonlaaksontie 2, 70210, Kuopio, Finland. saara.sillanmaki@kuh.fi. 2. Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. saara.sillanmaki@kuh.fi. 3. Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. 4. Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Kuopio University Hospital, Puijonlaaksontie 2, 70210, Kuopio, Finland. 5. Department of Clinical Radiology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. 6. Heart Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. 7. Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abnormal electrical activation may cause dyssynchronous left ventricular (LV) contraction. In this study, we characterized and analyzed electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony in patient with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and healthy controls. METHODS: Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) data from 994 patients were analyzed. Forty-three patient fulfilled criteria for LBBB and 24 for controls. Electrical activation was characterized with vector electrocardiography (VECG) and LV function including mechanical dyssynchrony with ECG-gated MPI phase analysis. RESULTS: QRS duration (QRSd; r = 0.69, P < .001) and a few other VECG parameters correlated significantly with phase bandwidth (phaseBW) representing mechanical dyssynchrony. End-diastolic volume (EDV; r = 0.59, P < .001), ejection fraction and end-systolic volume correlated also with phaseBW. QRSd (β = 0.47, P < .001) and EDV (β = 0.36, P = .001) were independently associated with phaseBW explaining 55% of its variation. Sixty percent of patients with LBBB had significant mechanical dyssynchrony. Those patients had wider QRSd (159 vs 147 ms, P = .013) and larger EDV (144 vs 94 mL, P = .008) than those with synchronous LV contraction. Cut-off values for mechanical dyssynchrony seen in patients with LBBB were QRSd ≥ 165 ms and EDV ≥ 109 mL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite obvious conduction abnormality, LBBB is not always accompanied by mechanical dyssynchrony. QRSd and EDV explained 55% of variation seen in phaseBW. These two parameters were statistically different between LBBB cases with and without mechanical dyssynchrony.
BACKGROUND: Abnormal electrical activation may cause dyssynchronous left ventricular (LV) contraction. In this study, we characterized and analyzed electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony in patient with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and healthy controls. METHODS: Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) data from 994 patients were analyzed. Forty-three patient fulfilled criteria for LBBB and 24 for controls. Electrical activation was characterized with vector electrocardiography (VECG) and LV function including mechanical dyssynchrony with ECG-gated MPI phase analysis. RESULTS: QRS duration (QRSd; r = 0.69, P < .001) and a few other VECG parameters correlated significantly with phase bandwidth (phaseBW) representing mechanical dyssynchrony. End-diastolic volume (EDV; r = 0.59, P < .001), ejection fraction and end-systolic volume correlated also with phaseBW. QRSd (β = 0.47, P < .001) and EDV (β = 0.36, P = .001) were independently associated with phaseBW explaining 55% of its variation. Sixty percent of patients with LBBB had significant mechanical dyssynchrony. Those patients had wider QRSd (159 vs 147 ms, P = .013) and larger EDV (144 vs 94 mL, P = .008) than those with synchronous LV contraction. Cut-off values for mechanical dyssynchrony seen in patients with LBBB were QRSd ≥ 165 ms and EDV ≥ 109 mL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite obvious conduction abnormality, LBBB is not always accompanied by mechanical dyssynchrony. QRSd and EDV explained 55% of variation seen in phaseBW. These two parameters were statistically different between LBBB cases with and without mechanical dyssynchrony.
Authors: Jan A Kors; Isabella Kardys; Irene M van der Meer; Gerard van Herpen; Albert Hofman; Deirdre A M van der Kuip; Jacqueline C M Witteman Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2003 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Ji Chen; Ernest V Garcia; Russell D Folks; C David Cooke; Tracy L Faber; E Lindsey Tauxe; Ami E Iskandrian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Pentti M Rautaharju; Ron J Prineas; Joy Wood; Zhu-Ming Zhang; Richard Crow; Gerardo Heiss Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2007-08-22 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Zahra Emkanjoo; M Esmaeilzadeh; N Mohammad Hadi; A Alizadeh; M Tayyebi; M A Sadr-Ameli Journal: Europace Date: 2007-10-19 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Kenneth J Nichols; Andrew Van Tosh; Saadi Siddiqi; Ji Chen; Ernest V Garcia; Christopher J Palestro; Nathaniel Reichek Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-08-10 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Mark A Trimble; Salvador Borges-Neto; Emily F Honeycutt; Linda K Shaw; Robert Pagnanelli; Ji Chen; Ami E Iskandrian; Ernest V Garcia; Eric J Velazquez Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Tobias Gerach; Stephanie Appel; Jacek Wilczek; Krzysztof S Golba; Tomasz Jadczyk; Axel Loewe Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Björn Östenson; Ellen Ostenfeld; Anna Werther-Evaldsson; Anders Roijer; Zoltan Bakos; Mikael Kanski; Einar Heiberg; Håkan Arheden; Rasmus Borgquist; Marcus Carlsson Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 2.298