BACKGROUND: Patients with bundle branch block and syncope, especially those with abnormal electrophysiologic study, are at high risk of progression to second-or third-degree atrioventricular block and therefore they often receive a permanent back-up pacemaker. The aim of this study was to evaluate of the incidence of bundle branch block progression to second or third-degree atrioventricular block during long-term follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on 60 patients (49 males, age 77 +/- 9 years) with bundle branch block and permanent back-up pacemaker. The patients were subdivided into 3 groups: 13 patients, at pre-implant electrophysiologic study had HV interval > or = 100 msec and/or second- or third-degree atrioventricular block induced by ajmaline i.v. administration (Group 1); 20 patients with HV interval of 70-100 msec and/or HV > or = 120 msec after ajmaline administration (Group 2); 27 patients who had received a permanent pacemaker because of carotid sinus syndrome or sick sinus syndrome (22 patients) or because of recurrent syncopes and negative electrophysiologic study (5 patients) (Group 3). RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 62 +/- 41 months, 17/60 patients (28%) had progression to second- (n = 4) or third-degree (n = 13) atrioventricular block: atrioventricular block occurred in 54% of Group 1 patients in 25% of Group 2 patients and in 19% of Group 3 patients. The actuarial rate of progression to atrioventricular block for the overall population was, at 5 and 10 years, 25% and 58% respectively; in Group 1 it was 46% and 62%; in Group 2 it was 22% and 55% and in Group 3 it was 21% and 59% (p = 0.06). The patients with right bundle branch block and left anterior hemiblock were at higher risk of progression to atrioventricular block than those with right bundle branch block or left bundle branch block (risk 42% vs 14%, p = 0.06). The presence of an abnormal electrophysiologic study did not increase the progression rate either in the patients with right bundle branch block and left anterior hemiblock (risk of 43%), nor did it in those patients with other types of bundle branch block (risk of 18%). Moreover, the induction of second- or third-degree atrioventricular block during ajmaline administration was associated with a higher risk of block during the follow-up (60% vs 25%, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with pacemaker because of symptomatic bundle branch block have a high risk of progression to second- or third-degree atrioventricular block in the long-term follow-up. The results argue against the practical usefulness of electrophysiological study since a risk stratification could be obtained by the simpler surface electrocardiogram; moreover, risk of block was also present in the patients affected by carotid sinus syndrome or sick sinus syndrome, and in those affected by unexplained syncope with negative electrophysiologic study.
BACKGROUND:Patients with bundle branch block and syncope, especially those with abnormal electrophysiologic study, are at high risk of progression to second-or third-degree atrioventricular block and therefore they often receive a permanent back-up pacemaker. The aim of this study was to evaluate of the incidence of bundle branch block progression to second or third-degree atrioventricular block during long-term follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on 60 patients (49 males, age 77 +/- 9 years) with bundle branch block and permanent back-up pacemaker. The patients were subdivided into 3 groups: 13 patients, at pre-implant electrophysiologic study had HV interval > or = 100 msec and/or second- or third-degree atrioventricular block induced by ajmaline i.v. administration (Group 1); 20 patients with HV interval of 70-100 msec and/or HV > or = 120 msec after ajmaline administration (Group 2); 27 patients who had received a permanent pacemaker because of carotid sinus syndrome or sick sinus syndrome (22 patients) or because of recurrent syncopes and negative electrophysiologic study (5 patients) (Group 3). RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 62 +/- 41 months, 17/60 patients (28%) had progression to second- (n = 4) or third-degree (n = 13) atrioventricular block: atrioventricular block occurred in 54% of Group 1 patients in 25% of Group 2 patients and in 19% of Group 3 patients. The actuarial rate of progression to atrioventricular block for the overall population was, at 5 and 10 years, 25% and 58% respectively; in Group 1 it was 46% and 62%; in Group 2 it was 22% and 55% and in Group 3 it was 21% and 59% (p = 0.06). The patients with right bundle branch block and left anterior hemiblock were at higher risk of progression to atrioventricular block than those with right bundle branch block or left bundle branch block (risk 42% vs 14%, p = 0.06). The presence of an abnormal electrophysiologic study did not increase the progression rate either in the patients with right bundle branch block and left anterior hemiblock (risk of 43%), nor did it in those patients with other types of bundle branch block (risk of 18%). Moreover, the induction of second- or third-degree atrioventricular block during ajmaline administration was associated with a higher risk of block during the follow-up (60% vs 25%, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS:Patients treated with pacemaker because of symptomatic bundle branch block have a high risk of progression to second- or third-degree atrioventricular block in the long-term follow-up. The results argue against the practical usefulness of electrophysiological study since a risk stratification could be obtained by the simpler surface electrocardiogram; moreover, risk of block was also present in the patients affected by carotid sinus syndrome or sick sinus syndrome, and in those affected by unexplained syncope with negative electrophysiologic study.