Key result
In patients with unexplained syncope and bundle branch block without a pacemaker, the presence of a bifascicular block independently predicted recurrent syncope (HR 4.16).
Why the study?
Syncope in patients with bundle branch block is often due to advanced AV block, but the optimal management and factors predicting recurrent syncope required evaluation in real-world practice.
Observational (n=131)
No
Hazard Ratio: 4.16 (95% CI 1.29–13.41)
p-value: p=0.017
In patients with unexplained syncope and bundle branch block, an HV interval ≥ 60 msec and the presence of bifascicular block are strong predictors of syncope recurrence.
Bifascicular block may aid risk stratification in unexplained syncope; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change pacing practice.
Syncope in patients with bundle branch block (BBB) is often due to advanced atrioventricular (AV) block. The objective of the present "real-world" study was to evaluate the optimal management in patients with unexplained syncope and BBB and to identify factors that predict the recurrence of syncope. This is a single-center observational prospective registry of 131 consecutive patients undergoing invasive electrophysiology study (EPS) for recurrent unexplained presyncope or syncope attacks and BBB. When the EPS-derived diagnosis was reached, a decision to proceed with a permanent pacemaker was offered to the patient. An implantable loop recorder was inserted in the rest of the population. A total of 131 consecutive patients with unexplained syncope and BBB (67.2% male; age 63.7 ± 16.5 years) underwent EPS during the study period. The distribution of conduction disturbance patterns was as follows: isolated left bundle branch block (LBBB): 23.7%; LBBB with first AV block: 8.4%; isolated right bundle branch block (RBBB): 10.7%; RBBB with first AV block: 8.4%; isolated left anterior/posterior fascicular block: 13%; left anterior/posterior fascicular block with first AV block: 5.3%; isolated bifascicular block: 16.8%; and bifascicular block with first AV block: 13.7%. In the multivariate analysis, the only predictors of recurrent syncope were bifascicular block (hazard ratio (HR): 4.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29, 13.41, P: 0.017) and HV interval ≥ 60 msec (HR: 3.58, 95% CI: 1.12, 11.46, P: 0.032). An EPS-based strategy identifies a subset of patients who will benefit from permanent pacing. HV interval ≥ 60 msec and the presence of a bifascicular block were strongly related to syncope recurrence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Doundoulakis et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Unexplained syncope and bundle branch block (n=131). Bifascicular block vs. Absence of bifascicular block was evaluated on Recurrent syncope (HR 4.16, 95% CI 1.29-13.41, p=0.017). In patients with unexplained syncope and bundle branch block without a pacemaker, the presence of a bifascicular block independently predicted recurrent syncope (HR 4.16).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: