Assessment of left ventricular mechanics and energetics in various types of left bundle branch block using echocardiography

Abstract Aims In arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) typically displays left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology. Sustained VT with right bundle branch block (RBBB) morphology is very rare despite the frequent left ventricular involvement. The present study sought to assess the prevalence of spontaneous sustained LBBB-VT, RBBB-VT or both as well as clinical and genetic differences associated with these VT types. Methods and results Twenty-six centers from 11 European countries provided information on 952 patients with ACM and >1 episode of sustained VT observed during the patients' clinical course. VT was classified as: LBBB-VT; RBBB-VT or LBBB+RBBB-VT. Among 952 patients, 881 (92.5%) had LBBB-VT alone, 71 (7.5%) had RBBB-VT [alone in 42 (4.4%) patients or with LBBB-VT in 29 (3.0%) patients]. Male prevalence was 90.5%, 79.2% and 55.9% in the RBBB-VT, LBBB-VT and LBBB+RBBB-VT groups, respectively (P=0.001). Patients' age at first VT did not differ amongst the 3 VT groups. ICD implantation was more frequent for the RBBB-VT and the LBBB+RBBB groups (≈90% each) vs. 67.9% for the LBBB-VT group (P=0.001). Death incidence (9.5%–17.2%) was not significantly different between the 3 groups (P=0.425). Plakophylin-2 mutations predominated in the LBBB-VT and LBBB-VT+RBBB-VT groups (47.2% and 27.3%, respectively) and Desmoplakin mutations in the RBBB-VT group (36.7%). Conclusion This large European survey demonstrates: 1) Sustained RBBB-VT is documented in 7.5% patients with ACM; 2) Males markedly predominate in the RBBB-VT and LBBB-VT groups but not in the LBBB+RBBB VT group; 3) Distribution of desmosomal mutations appears to be different in the 3 VT groups. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Download Full-text

Major Left Bundle Branch Block and Coronary Heart Disease—Are There Any Differences between the Sexes?

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm10112284 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (11) ◽

pp. 2284

Author(s):

Diana Gurzău ◽

Alexandra Dădârlat-Pop ◽

Bogdan Caloian ◽

Gabriel Cismaru ◽

Horaţiu Comşa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Heart Disease ◽

Ischemic Heart Disease ◽

Left Bundle Branch Block ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Ischemic Heart ◽

Left Ventricular Ejection ◽

Bundle Branch Block ◽

Microvascular Angina ◽

Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Left bundle branch block is not a benign pathology, and its presence requires the identification of a pathological substrate, such as ischemic heart disease. Left bundle branch block appears to be more commonly associated with normal coronary arteries, especially in women. The objectives of our study were to describe the particularities of left bundle branch block in women compared to men with ischemic heart disease. Result: We included seventy patients with left bundle branch block and ischemic heart disease, with a mean age of 67.01 ± 8.89 years. There were no differences in the profile of risk factors, except for smoking and uric acid. The ventricular depolarization (QRS) duration was longer in men than women (136.86 ± 8.32 vs. 132.57 ± 9.19 msec; p = 0.018) and also men were observed to have larger left ventricular diameters. Left bundle branch block duration was directly associated with ventricular diameters and indirectly associated with left ventricular ejection fraction value, especially in women (R = −0.52, p = 0.0012 vs. R = −0.50, p = 0.002). In angiography, 80% of women had normal epicardial arteries compared with 65.7% of men; all these patients presented with microvascular dysfunction. Conclusion: The differences between the sexes were not so obvious in terms of the presence of risk factors; instead, there were differences in electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and angiographic aspects. Left bundle branch block appears to be a marker of microvascular angina and systolic dysfunction, especially in women.

Download Full-text

New onset left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and the effect on long-term survival – a UK wide experience

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.2607 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽

Author(s):

S.S Arri ◽

A Myat ◽

I Malik ◽

N Curzen ◽

A Baumbach ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation ◽

Left Bundle Branch Block ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Bundle Branch Block ◽

Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽

All Cause Mortality ◽

Aortic Valve Implantation ◽

Valve Implantation ◽

New Onset

Abstract Introduction New onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) is the most common conduction disturbance associated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). It has been shown to adversely affect cardiac function and increase re-hospitalisation, although its impact on mortality remains contentious. Methods We conducted an observational cohort analysis of all TAVI procedures performed by 13 heart teams in the United Kingdom from inception of their structural programmes until 31st July 2013. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 30 days and need for a post-TAVI permanent pacemaker (PPM). Results 1785 patients were eligible for inclusion to the study. The primary analysis cohort was composed of 1409 patients with complete electrocardiographic (ECG) data pre- and post-TAVI. Pre-existing LBBB was present in 200 (14.2%) patients. New LBBB occurred in 323 (22.9%) patients post TAVI, which resolved in 99 (7%) patients prior to discharge. A balloon-expandable device was implanted in 968 (69%) patients, whilst 421 (30%) patients received a self-expandable valve. New LBBB was observed in 120 (12.4%) and 192 (45.6%) patients receiving a balloon- or self-expandable prosthesis respectively. Overall 1-year all-cause mortality post TAVI was 18.7%. New onset LBBB was not associated with an increase in 1-year all-cause mortality (p=0.416). Factors that were associated with mortality included an increasing logistic EuroScore (p=0.05), history of previous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (p=0.001), renal impairment (p=0.003), previous myocardial infarction with pre-existing LBBB (p=0.028) and atrial fibrillation (p=0.039). Lower baseline peak and mean AV gradients were also associated with greater mortality at 1 year (p=0.001), likely reflecting underlying left ventricular dysfunction. In the majority of patients, LVEF remained unchanged following TAVI. Interestingly, the presence or absence of new onset LBBB did not affect LVEF improvement at 30 days. 10% of patients required a PPM post TAVI. Predictors of PPM included new LBBB (OR 2.6, p<0.001), pre-TAVI left ventricular systolic impairment (OR 1.2, p=0.037), a self-expandable device (p<0.001), and pre-existing RBBB (OR 4.0, p<0.001). Conclusions These findings suggest that new onset LBBB post TAVI does not increase mortality at 1 year or adversely affect LVEF at 30 days. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Download Full-text