Key result
LBBB morphology patterns show no difference in mechanical dyssynchrony rates among patients with systolic dysfunction.
Why the study?
Mechanical ventricular dyssynchrony on echocardiography can help identify patients responsive to CRT, but its prevalence in different LBBB morphologic patterns in patients with systolic dysfunction is unclear.
Does the prevalence of mechanical dyssynchrony differ among different electrocardiographic patterns of LBBB in patients with left systolic dysfunction?
Cross-Sectional (n=48)
Does the prevalence of mechanical dyssynchrony differ among different electrocardiographic patterns of LBBB in patients with left systolic dysfunction?
Different electrocardiographic patterns of LBBB do not significantly affect the prevalence of mechanical dyssynchrony in patients with left systolic dysfunction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Similar mechanical dyssynchrony prevalence across LBBB patterns cautions against ECG-based CRT stratification; leaves open prospective validation in systolic dysfunction.
BACKGROUND: Left bundle-branch block (LBBB) and the presence of systolic dysfunction are the major indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Mechanical ventricular dyssynchrony on echocardiography can help identify patients responsive to CRT. Left bundle-branch block can have different morphologic patterns. OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of mechanical dyssynchrony in different patterns of LBBB in patients with left systolic dysfunction. METHODS: This study assessed 48 patients with ejection fraction (EF) < 40% and LBBB consecutively referred for dyssynchrony analysis. Conventional echocardiography and mechanical dyssynchrony analysis were performed, interventricular and intraventricular, with ten known methods, using M mode, Doppler and tissue Doppler imaging, isolated or combined. The LBBB morphology was categorized according to left electrical axis deviation in the frontal plane and QRS duration > 150 ms. RESULTS: The patients' mean age was 60 ± 11 years, 24 were males, and mean EF was 29% ± 7%. Thirty-two had QRS > 150 ms, and22, an electrical axis between -30º and +90º. Interventricular dyssynchrony was identified in 73% of the patients, while intraventricular dyssynchrony, in 37%-98%. Patients with QRS > 150 ms had larger left atrium and ventricle, and lower EF (p < 0.05). Left electrical axis deviation associated with worse diastolic function and greater atrial diameter. Interventricular and intraventricular mechanical dyssynchrony (ten methods) was similar in the different LBBB patterns (p = ns). CONCLUSION: In the two different electrocardiographic patterns of LBBB analyzed, no difference regarding the presence of mechanical dyssynchrony was observed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barretto et al. (2013) conducted a cross-sectional in Left bundle-branch block and left systolic dysfunction (n=48). Different patterns of LBBB (QRS > 150 ms and left electrical axis deviation) vs. Other patterns of LBBB was evaluated on Interventricular and intraventricular mechanical dyssynchrony (p=ns). The prevalence of mechanical dyssynchrony was similar across different electrocardiographic patterns of LBBB in patients with left systolic dysfunction (p = ns).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: