Why the study?
Does the presence and type of coronary artery disease predict the reversibility of new-onset atrioventricular block?
Does the presence and type of coronary artery disease predict the reversibility of new-onset atrioventricular block?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Atrioventricular block in the setting of acute myocardial infarction is usually reversible, suggesting permanent pacemaker implantation should be delayed, whereas AV block with other forms of CAD is typically irreversible.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The causal relationship of clinically-significant atrioventricular block (AVB) and coronary artery disease (CAD) is uncertain. We investigated whether CAD is related to irreversible AVB that requires treatment with a permanent pacemaker. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We included 188 consecutive patients with new-onset AVB considering pacemaker, who had undergone invasive or noninvasive coronary evaluation. Patients were divided into one of 2 groups: irreversible AVB who underwent implantation of permanent pacemaker {irreversible block (IB) group, n=173} or reversible AVB {reversible block (RB) group, n=15}. RESULTS: In IB group, significant CAD was observed in 44 patients (25.4%) and there were 2 (1.2%) patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). In RB group, 14 patients (93.3%) had CAD (p<0.001) and 13 patients (86.7%) presented with AMI (p<0.001). On the aspect of CAD type and reversibility of AVB, 13/15 (86.7%) patients of AMI, 0/2 (0%) of unstable angina, and 1/41 (2.4%) of stable angina had reversible AVB. CONCLUSION: AVB in patients with AMI is usually reversible. Therefore, permanent pacemaker implantation should be delayed in cases of AMI. AVB in patients with CAD other than AMI is usually irreversible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hwang et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: