Key result
HV interval prolongation during acute myocardial infarction was associated with a higher rate of cardiac mortality during follow-up compared to normal HV intervals (50% vs 13%, p<0.01).
Why the study?
Does HV interval prolongation predict worse prognosis in patients with isolated intraventricular conduction disturbances complicating acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=59)
Does HV interval prolongation predict worse prognosis in patients with isolated intraventricular conduction disturbances complicating acute myocardial infarction?
HV prolongation in patients with post-infarctional IVCD correlates with worse prognosis and wider anatomic damage, but does not require permanent prophylactic pacing due to low incidence of late AV block.
Fifty-nine patients with post-infarctional, isolated intraventricular conduction disturbances (IVCD) who survived the acute stage of myocardial infarction were followed up after hospital discharge for a mean period of 11.4 +/- 4.8 months. Fourteen patients (24%) had HV interval prolongation (greater than 55 ms) during AMI (group A), and 45 patients had normal HV intervals (76%, group B). His bundle recordings were repeated during follow-up in 48 survivors after a mean period of 7.2 +/- 0.7 months. Infranodal conduction delay in the acute stage of infarction was correlated with a higher incidence of heart failure during AMI (78% of patients in group A vs 22% in group B, p less than 0.001), and with higher rate of cardiac mortality during follow-up (50% in group A vs 13% in group B, p less than 0.01). Survivors of group A showed a higher functional NYHA class, a higher incidence of CHF, and a higher prevalence of complex ventricular arrhythmias at Holter monitoring. No statistically significant difference in late sudden death was evident between the two groups of patients, and the global incidence of late AV block was 2%. At repeat His bundle recording no significant change (greater than 5 ms) in HV interval could be demonstrated in comparison to the acute phase recording, neither in patients with prolonged nor in patients with normal HV time. We conclude that HV prolongation in patients with isolated, post-infarctional IVCD is correlated with a worse prognosis, both during acute infarction and during the follow-up period, which presumably reflects wider anatomic damage in comparison to patients with normal HV time. The low incidence of late AV block and the electrophysiological demonstration of the stability of infranodal conduction several months after AMI indicate that these patients do not require permanent prophylactic pacing after acute myocardial infarction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pagnoni et al. (1986) conducted a cohort in Post-infarctional, isolated intraventricular conduction disturbances (IVCD) (n=59). HV interval prolongation (>55 ms) vs. Normal HV intervals was evaluated on Cardiac mortality during follow-up (p=<0.01). HV interval prolongation during acute myocardial infarction was associated with a higher rate of cardiac mortality during follow-up compared to normal HV intervals (50% vs 13%, p<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: