Key result
In patients with bundle branch block after myocardial infarction, recurrent MI and LVEF < 30% predicted cardiac death in LBBB, whereas SAECG provided no incremental prognostic value.
Why the study?
Does SAECG and clinical variables predict cardiac death in patients with bundle branch block after myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=155)
Does SAECG and clinical variables predict cardiac death in patients with bundle branch block after myocardial infarction?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinical variables such as recurrent MI and LVEF < 30% are strong predictors of cardiac death in post-MI patients with LBBB, while SAECG does not provide incremental prognostic value.
Background Left (LBBB) and right (RBBB) bundle branch block (BBB) patients have an increased incidence of cardiac death after myocardial infarction (Ml). The purpose of this study was to assess the value of the signal‐averaged electrocardiogram (SAECG) and other clinical variables for the prediction of cardiac death after MI in BBB patients. Methods SAECGs were recorded 5–15 days after MI in 76 LBBB and 79 RBBB patients. The SAECG was analyzed in the time domain and the frequency domain (wavelet analysis in 7 frequency bands ranging from 0.05 to 250 Hz). Results During follow‐up (17 ± 8 months), cardiac death occurred in 22 LBBB (28.9%) and 12 RBBB patients (15.2%). None of the SAECG time‐domain variables were significantly different between patients with and without cardiac death. In LBBB patients, univariate analysis showed that one wavelet parameter in the 3.9‐ to 7.8‐ Hz frequency band (P = 0.008), inhospital recurrent Ml (P = 0.002), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 30% (P = 0.004), lack of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (P = 0.02), and history of angina (P = 0.029) were significantly different in cardiac death patients. In RBBB patients, only recurrent angina was significantly different (P = 0.025). In LBBB patients, the combination of recurrent Ml or LVEF < 30% displayed the best predictive values: sensitivity (85.7%), specificity (76.6%), positive (52.2%), negative (94.7%), and total (78.7%) predictive accuracies and risk ratio of 9.9. The effect of recurrent Ml and LVEF < 30% remained after statistical adjustment by means of regression using Cox proportional hazards. Conclusions High‐risk Ml patients can be identified by recurrent Ml and LVEF < 30% in LBBB patients, and by recurrent angina in RBBB patients. SAECG did not demonstrate incremental information for the purpose of risk stratification in BBB patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sierra et al. (1999) conducted a cohort in Bundle branch block after myocardial infarction (n=155). Signal-averaged electrocardiogram (SAECG) and clinical variables vs. Absence of risk factors was evaluated on Cardiac death (RR 9.9). In patients with bundle branch block after myocardial infarction, recurrent MI and LVEF < 30% predicted cardiac death in LBBB, whereas SAECG provided no incremental prognostic value.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: