Marek Jastrzębski1, Piotr Kukla2, Roksana Kisiel1, Kamil Fijorek3, Paweł Moskal1, Danuta Czarnecka1. 1. First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Medical College, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland. 2. Department of Cardiology, H. Klimontowicz Specialistic Hospital, Gorlice, Poland. 3. Department of Statistics, Cracow University of Economics, Cracow, Poland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is considered an important prognostic parameter in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to evaluate, in a sizeable cohort of patients with CRT, long-term mortality, and morbidity according to four different electrocardiographic definitions of LBBB. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent CRT device implantation in our institution in years 2006-2014. Two endpoints were assessed: (a) death from any cause or urgent heart transplantation, and (b) death from any cause or heart failure admission. All preimplantation ECGs were analyzed by three physicians blinded to outcome and categorized as LBBB or non-LBBB according to four definitions. RESULTS: A total of 552 CRT patients entered survival analysis. According to the conventional definition, 350 (63.4%) patients had LBBB, and the Marriott, WHO/AHA, and Strauss definitions identified LBBB in 254 (46.0%), 218 (39.5%) and 226 (40.9%) patients, respectively. During the 9 years of observation, 232 patients died, the combined endpoint was met by 292 patients. The Strauss LBBB definition was significantly better to the other definitions in predicting survival (Kaplan-Meier analysis with comparison of C-statistics). Multivariate Cox regression model showed that LBBB was the major determinant of all-cause mortality with the Strauss definition having the lowest hazard ratio (0.51) of the four studied definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria included in various definitions of LBBB result in a diagnosis of LBBB in divergent groups of patients. Differences in LBBB definitions have clinical consequences, as patients without 'complete/true' LBBB probably get no mortality benefit from CRT.
BACKGROUND:Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is considered an important prognostic parameter in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to evaluate, in a sizeable cohort of patients with CRT, long-term mortality, and morbidity according to four different electrocardiographic definitions of LBBB. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent CRT device implantation in our institution in years 2006-2014. Two endpoints were assessed: (a) death from any cause or urgent heart transplantation, and (b) death from any cause or heart failure admission. All preimplantation ECGs were analyzed by three physicians blinded to outcome and categorized as LBBB or non-LBBB according to four definitions. RESULTS: A total of 552 CRT patients entered survival analysis. According to the conventional definition, 350 (63.4%) patients had LBBB, and the Marriott, WHO/AHA, and Strauss definitions identified LBBB in 254 (46.0%), 218 (39.5%) and 226 (40.9%) patients, respectively. During the 9 years of observation, 232 patients died, the combined endpoint was met by 292 patients. The Strauss LBBB definition was significantly better to the other definitions in predicting survival (Kaplan-Meier analysis with comparison of C-statistics). Multivariate Cox regression model showed that LBBB was the major determinant of all-cause mortality with the Strauss definition having the lowest hazard ratio (0.51) of the four studied definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria included in various definitions of LBBB result in a diagnosis of LBBB in divergent groups of patients. Differences in LBBB definitions have clinical consequences, as patients without 'complete/true' LBBB probably get no mortality benefit from CRT.
Authors: Jeff M Hsing; Kimberly A Selzman; Christophe Leclercq; Luis A Pires; Michael G McLaughlin; Scott E McRae; Brett J Peterson; Peter J Zimetbaum Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2011-09-28
Authors: Ilke Sipahi; Josephine C Chou; Marshall Hyden; Douglas Y Rowland; Daniel I Simon; James C Fang Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Wojciech Zareba; Helmut Klein; Iwona Cygankiewicz; W Jackson Hall; Scott McNitt; Mary Brown; David Cannom; James P Daubert; Michael Eldar; Michael R Gold; Jeffrey J Goldberger; Ilan Goldenberg; Edgar Lichstein; Heinz Pitschner; Mayer Rashtian; Scott Solomon; Sami Viskin; Paul Wang; Arthur J Moss Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J L Willems; E O Robles de Medina; R Bernard; P Coumel; C Fisch; D Krikler; N A Mazur; F L Meijler; L Mogensen; P Moret Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1985-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: John G Cleland; William T Abraham; Cecilia Linde; Michael R Gold; James B Young; J Claude Daubert; Lou Sherfesee; George A Wells; Anthony S L Tang Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Chloé Auberson; Patrick Badertscher; Antonio Madaffari; Meriton Malushi; Luc Bourquin; Florian Spies; Stefanie Aeschbacher; Gregor Fahrni; Christoph Kaiser; Raban Jeger; Stefan Osswald; Christian Sticherling; Sven Knecht; Michael Kühne Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Jani Rankinen; Petri Haataja; Leo-Pekka Lyytikäinen; Heini Huhtala; Terho Lehtimäki; Mika Kähönen; Markku Eskola; Andrés Ricardo Pérez-Riera; Antti Jula; Harri Rissanen; Kjell Nikus; Jussi Hernesniemi Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 1.468