Javier García-Seara1, Diego Iglesias Alvarez2, Belen Alvarez Alvarez2, Francisco Gude Sampedro3, Jose L Martínez Sande4, Moisés Rodríguez-Mañero4, Bahij Kreidieh5, Xesus Alberte Fernández-López4, Laila González Melchor4, José Ramón González Juanatey2. 1. Cardiology Department, Arrhythmia Unit, Clinical University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, CIBER CV Spain, Travesía Choupana s/n, 15701, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. javiergarciaseara@yahoo.es. 2. Cardiology Department, Clinical University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, CIBER CV Spain, Travesía Choupana s/n, 15701, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 3. Epidemiology Department, Clinical University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, CIBER CV Spain, Travesía Choupana s/n, 15701, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 4. Cardiology Department, Arrhythmia Unit, Clinical University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, CIBER CV Spain, Travesía Choupana s/n, 15701, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 5. Cardiac Electrophysiology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Left bundle branch block (LBBB) configuration has been described as a predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We investigated whether different subtypes of true LBBB configuration could help select patients with better response and clinical outcome. METHODS: This retrospective study included 198 consecutive LBBB patients implanted with a CRT. True LBBB was defined using the Strauss and the Predict study criteria. Echocardiographic response was evaluated by the reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and the increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Clinical response was defined as an improvement in one category of the NYHA functional class. RESULTS: Patients with true LBBB had a greater improvement in both LVESV reduction (median = - 27.6%, interquartile range = [- 4.9, - 50.1]) and LVEF increase (median 10.8 ± 10) than those with non-true LBBB (- 19.7%, [16.7, - 48.0]) p = 0.04 and 5.1 ± 10, p = 0.03, respectively. No differences were exhibited between true LBBB Strauss group (- 26.7%, [- 11.0, - 46.9]) and true LBBB Predict group (- 26.6%, [- 15.9, - 39.4]). There were no statistically significant differences in the percentage of patients with clinical response, assessed by NYHA improvement, among all groups. In the Cox model for death, age, ischemic etiology, and ΔLVESV were independent predictors of mortality. True LBBB (Strauss + Predict) patients had a trend towards lower mortality than non-true LBBB [HR = 0.55, 95% CI = (0.22-1.15)], p = 0.08. In the Cox model for HF hospitalization, age, sex male, prior LVEF, and ΔLVESV were independent predictors. True LBBB (Strauss + Predict) patients had a significantly lower risk of developing HF hospitalization than those with non-true LBBB [0.45 (0.21-0.90)], p = 0.029. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with true LBBB, either Strauss or Predict criteria, had greater echocardiographic response and lower incidence of HF hospitalization than non-true LBBB when implanted with CRT.
PURPOSE:Left bundle branch block (LBBB) configuration has been described as a predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We investigated whether different subtypes of true LBBB configuration could help select patients with better response and clinical outcome. METHODS: This retrospective study included 198 consecutive LBBB patients implanted with a CRT. True LBBB was defined using the Strauss and the Predict study criteria. Echocardiographic response was evaluated by the reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and the increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Clinical response was defined as an improvement in one category of the NYHA functional class. RESULTS:Patients with true LBBB had a greater improvement in both LVESV reduction (median = - 27.6%, interquartile range = [- 4.9, - 50.1]) and LVEF increase (median 10.8 ± 10) than those with non-true LBBB (- 19.7%, [16.7, - 48.0]) p = 0.04 and 5.1 ± 10, p = 0.03, respectively. No differences were exhibited between true LBBB Strauss group (- 26.7%, [- 11.0, - 46.9]) and true LBBB Predict group (- 26.6%, [- 15.9, - 39.4]). There were no statistically significant differences in the percentage of patients with clinical response, assessed by NYHA improvement, among all groups. In the Cox model for death, age, ischemic etiology, and ΔLVESV were independent predictors of mortality. True LBBB (Strauss + Predict) patients had a trend towards lower mortality than non-true LBBB [HR = 0.55, 95% CI = (0.22-1.15)], p = 0.08. In the Cox model for HF hospitalization, age, sex male, prior LVEF, and ΔLVESV were independent predictors. True LBBB (Strauss + Predict) patients had a significantly lower risk of developing HF hospitalization than those with non-true LBBB [0.45 (0.21-0.90)], p = 0.029. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with true LBBB, either Strauss or Predict criteria, had greater echocardiographic response and lower incidence of HF hospitalization than non-true LBBB when implanted with CRT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Heart failure; Left bundle branch block
Authors: Anthony S L Tang; George A Wells; Mario Talajic; Malcolm O Arnold; Robert Sheldon; Stuart Connolly; Stefan H Hohnloser; Graham Nichol; David H Birnie; John L Sapp; Raymond Yee; Jeffrey S Healey; Jean L Rouleau Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Cheuk-Man Yu; Gabe B Bleeker; Jeffrey Wing-Hong Fung; Martin J Schalij; Qing Zhang; Ernst E van der Wall; Yat-Sun Chan; Shun-Ling Kong; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-09-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Benzy J Padanilam; Kent E Morris; Jeff A Olson; Janet S Rippy; Mary Norine Walsh; Natrajan Subramanian; Alex Vidal; Eric N Prystowsky; Leonard A Steinberg Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2010-02-01
Authors: Robbert Zusterzeel; Kimberly A Selzman; William E Sanders; Daniel A Caños; Kathryn M O'Callaghan; Jamie L Carpenter; Ileana L Piña; David G Strauss Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robbert Zusterzeel; Jeptha P Curtis; Daniel A Caños; William E Sanders; Kimberly A Selzman; Ileana L Piña; Erica S Spatz; Haikun Bao; Angelo Ponirakis; Paul D Varosy; Frederick A Masoudi; David G Strauss Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Piotr Ponikowski; Adriaan A Voors; Stefan D Anker; Héctor Bueno; John G F Cleland; Andrew J S Coats; Volkmar Falk; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Ewa A Jankowska; Mariell Jessup; Cecilia Linde; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John T Parissis; Burkert Pieske; Jillian P Riley; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Luis M Ruilope; Frank Ruschitzka; Frans H Rutten; Peter van der Meer Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 29.983