Multifaceted Left Bundle Branch Block: What Are the Mechanisms?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Raymond-Paquin A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8897027 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Multifaceted Left Bundle Branch Block: What Are the Mechanisms?
Raymond-Paquin Alexandre A Ellenbogen Kenneth A KA Padala Santosh K SK
JACC. Case reports 20220302 5
Understanding different mechanisms of aberrant conduction is critical to better evaluate the need for cardiac pacing. Aberrant conduction is caused by 4 distinct electrophysiologic mechanisms: phase 3 block, acceleration-dependent block, phase 4 block, and concealed transseptal conduction. This case offers a unique opportunity to review all aberrant conduction mechanisms in the same patient. (<b>Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.</b>). ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Chest pain may be rarely associated with left bundle branch block (LBBB)-mediated ventricular dys-synchrony has been reported. This article reports 2 such cases, where left bundle branch area pacing resulted in resolution of the LBBB and associated symptoms. By adjusting the atrioventricular delays, the QRS duration was narrowed further by achieving fusion with the intrinsic activation wavefront. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.).
| S-EPMC8298553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComplete bundle branch block in individuals without structural heart disease is known as isolated complete bundle branch block. Isolated complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB) is correlated with ventricular dysfunction secondary to dyssynchrony; however, few studies have investigated isolated complete right bundle branch block (CRBBB), which was previously considered benign but was recently found to be associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate cardiac mechanical synchrony, and systolic and diastolic function in patients with isolated CRBBB and compare cardiac synchrony and function to patients with isolated CLBBB.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted at The First Hospital of China Medical University in Shenyang, China, from 2020 to 2021. A total of 44 isolated CRBBB patients, 44 isolated CLBBB patients, and 42 healthy subjects were enrolled in the study. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed in all subjects. Synchrony parameters, including the mechanical dispersion of the right ventricle [the standard deviation of time to the peak longitudinal strain of six right ventricular (RV) segments] and atrioventricular dyssynchrony parameter [the ratio of left ventricular (LV) diastolic filling time to the time interval between two adjacent R waves (RR interval) measured by tissue Doppler imaging]. RV and LV function were assessed by the global longitudinal strain (GLS) of six RV segments and 18 LV segments, and the ratio of the peak early diastolic flow velocity to annular velocity (E/e') of the tricuspid valve and mitral valve. Statistical analyses were performed, including an analysis of variance, Pearson correlation analysis, and linear regression analysis.ResultsCompared with the healthy subjects, the mechanical dispersion of the right ventricle was significantly increased, and ventricular function was impaired as evidenced by the decreased RV GLS and LV GLS, and the increased E/e' of the tricuspid valve and mitral valve in the isolated CRBBB patients (all P<0.001). Moreover, compared with the isolated CLBBB patients, the mechanical dispersion of the right ventricle and E/e' of the tricuspid valve were increased, and RV GLS was significantly reduced in the isolated CRBBB patients (all P<0.001). Mechanical dispersion of the right ventricle was independently associated with RV GLS [coefficient, 0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.004-0.26; P=0.04] in the isolated CRBBB patients. RV GLS (coefficient, 0.10; 95% CI: 0.01-0.20; P=0.03) and the ratio of the LV diastolic filling time to the RR interval measured (coefficient, -0.30; 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.07; P=0.01) were independent factors of LV GLS.ConclusionsThe isolated CRBBB patients had impaired cardiac mechanical synchrony and ventricular function, and more decreased RV synchrony and function than the isolated CLBBB patients. Right intraventricular synchrony was independently associated with RV systolic dysfunction in patients with isolated CRBBB. Atrioventricular synchrony and RV systolic function were independently associated with the LV systolic function. Therefore, comprehensive evaluations of echocardiography results and close monitoring is required for isolated CRBBB patients.
| S-EPMC11320498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Left bundle branch block (LBBB) causes left ventricular dyssynchrony, and its presence with concomitant left ventricular dysfunction has been proven to play a synergistic role, worsening ventricular function. Our study seeks to further explore the association between LBBB and various in-hospital outcomes in patients with takotsubo syndrome (TTS). Methods The national inpatient sample was queried from 2016 to 2019 to identify all admissions with a primary diagnosis of TTS. International classification of diseases, tenth revision codes were used to divide patients based on the presence or absence of LBBB. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess the effect of LBBB among all the pre-specified outcomes. Results A total of 26,615 admissions were included in the analysis. Admissions with LBBB were more likely to be older (72.2 vs. 66.2 years) and have a higher burden of comorbidities. The presence of a LBBB was associated with ventricular arrhythmias (OR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.08–3.61, p = 0.028) but not with sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and all-cause intra-hospital mortality. Conclusions Intraventricular dyssynchrony appears to play a significant role in ventricular arrhythmogenesis and SCA, as several trials have demonstrated that cardiac resynchronization therapy alone without defibrillator function reduces the rate of ventricular arrhythmias and SCA in patients with heart failure with systolic dysfunction and a widened QRS complex. The most likely mechanism of arrhythmia development in TTS is related to the elevated plasma levels of catecholamines and their proarrhythmic effects in the ventricular myocardium.
| S-EPMC9513099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative means to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).HypothesisLBBP may deliver resynchronization therapy along with an advantage over traditional biventricular (BiV) pacing in clinical outcomes.MethodsHeart failure patients who presented LBBB morphology according to Strauss's criteria and received successful CRT procedure were enrolled in the present study. Propensity score matching was applied to match patients into LBBP-CRT group and BiV-CRT group. Then, the electrographic data, the echocardiographic data and New York heart association (NYHA) class were compared between the groups.ResultsTwenty-one patients with successful LBBP procedure and another 21 matched patients with successful BiV-CRT procedure were finally enrolled in the study. The QRS duration (QRSd) was narrowed from 167.7 ± 14.9 ms to 111.7 ± 12.3 ms (P < .0001) in the LBBP-CRT group and from 163.6 ± 13.8 ms to 130.1 ± 14.0 ms (P < .0001) in the BiV-CRT group. A trend toward better left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was recorded in the LBBP-CRT group (50.9 ± 10.7% vs 44.4 ± 13.3%, P = .12) compared to that in the BiV-CRT group at the 6-month follow-up. A trend toward better echocardiographic response was documented in patients receiving LBBP-CRT procedure (90.5% vs 80.9%, P = .43) and more super CRT response was documented in the LBBP-CRT group (80.9% vs 57.1%, P = .09) compared to that in the BiV-CRT group.ConclusionsLBBP-CRT can dramatically improve the electrical synchrony in heart failure patients with LBBB. Meanwhile, compared with the traditional BiV-CRT, it has a tendency to significantly improve LVEF and enhance the NYHA cardiac function scores.
| S-EPMC7724211 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Biventricular endocardial (BIV-endo) pacing and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel delivery methods for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Both pacing methods can be delivered through leadless pacing, to avoid risks associated with endocardial or transvenous leads. We used computational modelling to quantify synchrony induced by BIV-endo pacing and LBP through a leadless pacing system, and to investigate how the right-left ventricle (RV-LV) delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect response. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart meshes inclusive of His-Purkinje networks with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Leadless biventricular (BIV) pacing was simulated by adding an RV apical stimulus and an LV lateral wall stimulus (BIV-endo lateral) or targeting the left bundle (BIV-LBP), with an RV-LV delay set to 5 ms. To test effect of prolonged RV-LV delays and RV pacing location, the RV-LV delay was increased to 35 ms and/or the RV stimulus was moved to the RV septum. BIV-endo lateral pacing was less sensitive to increased RV-LV delays, while RV septal pacing worsened response compared to RV apical pacing, especially for long RV-LV delays. To investigate how left bundle capture affects response, we computed 90% BIV activation times (BIVAT-90) during BIV-LBP with selective and non-selective capture, and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), simulated by pacing 1 cm below the left bundle. Non-selective LBP was comparable to selective LBP. LBBAP was worse than selective LBP (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 62.7 ± 6.5, p < 0.01), but it still significantly reduced activation times from baseline. Finally, we compared leadless LBP with RV pacing against optimal LBP delivery through a standard lead system by simulating BIV-LBP and selective LBP alone with and without optimized atrioventricular delay (AVD). Although LBP alone with optimized AVD was better than BIV-LBP, when AVD optimization was not possible BIV-LBP outperformed LBP alone, because the RV pacing stimulus shortened RV activation (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 66.9 ± 5.1 ms, p < 0.01). BIV-endo lateral pacing or LBP delivered through a leadless system could potentially become an alternative to standard CRT. RV-LV delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect leadless pacing efficacy and should be considered in future trial designs.
| S-EPMC9794756 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8695250 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5336907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo redesign and simplify an existing decision algorithm for the management of patients who present to the emergency department with chest pain and left bundle branch block (LBBB) based on the Sgarbossa criteria. To compare its reliability with the current algorithm.MethodsA simplified algorithm was created and tested against the existing algorithm. Electrocardiograms (ECGs) of patients with LBBB were presented to 10 emergency department doctors with both old and new algorithms a week apart. Six ECGs displayed the relevant criteria for thrombolysis and had proven acute myocardial infarction (AMI) based on a gold standard of enzyme measurements. Subjects were asked whether or not they would thrombolyse a patient presenting with the given ECG using each of the algorithms as a guide.ResultsThe new algorithm has demonstrated improvements in terms of an increase in appropriate thrombolysis and a reduction in inappropriate thrombolysis. Specificity for AMI rose from 0.85 to 0.99 and sensitivity from 0.38 to 0.6. kappa score showed greater agreement with the gold standard.ConclusionPatients with AMI and LBBB have a significantly poorer outcome than those without LBBB. Despite this, thrombolysis is less likely to be given to patients with AMI and LBBB. This study demonstrates that in part this is because of cognitive difficulties using the current algorithm. The proposed proforma addresses these issues and provides a simple tool to aid appropriate treatment in this group of patients.
| S-EPMC1726923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo evaluate ventricular synchronization and function in patients with right bundle-branch block after left bundle-branch-area pacing (LBBAP) by echocardiography.MethodsForty patients who successfully received LBBAP were selected and divided into the right bundle-branch block group (RBBB group) and the non-RBBB group by pre-operation ECG. Echocardiography and follow-up were performed 1 month after operation. Interventricular synchronization was evaluated by tissue Doppler (TDI), tissue mitral annular displacement (TMAD), and interventricular mechanical delay. The tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), right ventricular fractional area change (RVFAC), tricuspid annulus sidewall systolic velocity (TV-s'), left ventricular global ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS), right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (LS-RV), standard deviation of left ventricular 18 segments peak time difference (SDt-L) and standard deviation of right ventricular free wall 3 segments peak time difference (SDt-R) were applied to evaluate intraventricular synchronization and ventricular function.ResultsThe difference of displacement peak time of the tricuspid and mitral valves, namely ΔPTTV-MV measured by TMAD, the difference of systolic time to peak of the tricuspid and mitral valves, namely ΔTsTV-MV measured by TDI, were statistically different between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the non-RBBB group, there were no statistically significant differences in the GLS, RVFAC, LS-RV, TAPSE, TV-s', SDt-L, SDt-R (P > 0.05).ConclusionEchocardiography technology including two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI), TDI, and TMAD can effectively analyze interventricular synchronization, intraventricular synchronization, and ventricular function. Although the movement of the right ventricular myocardium in the RBBB group was slightly later than that of the left ventricular myocardium after LBBAP, LBBAP could still be applied in RBBB patients with pacing indication.
| S-EPMC9394046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe present study aimed to compare the effects of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) on cardiac function and clinical outcomes in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35 vs. ≤35%.Methods and resultsThirty-six consecutive patients with LBBB and LVEF <50% were enrolled. All patients were followed up for a mean of 6 months. The successful LBBAP was defined as a paced QRS complex presented as right bundle branch block (RBBB) morphology and QRSd < 130 ms. Echocardiography parameters, pacing parameters and clinical outcomes were collected. The successful LBBAP was achieved in 77.8% of all cases (28/36). In LVEF > 35% group (70 ± 8 years, 9 male), the success rate was 81.0% (17/21). QRSd significantly decreased from 174 ± 23 ms to 108 ± 13 ms (P < 0.001). The pacing threshold and R-wave amplitude were 0.6 ± 0.2 V @ 0.5 ms and 12 ± 7 mV, respectively. In LVEF ≤ 35% group (69 ± 5 years, 9 male), the success rate was 73.3% (11/15) with QRSd decreasing from 188 ± 25 ms to 107 ± 11 ms (P < 0.001). The hyperresponders to LBBAP (functional recovery and LVEF ≥ 50%) in LVEF > 35% group was 52.9%, which were almost twice of that in LVEF ≤ 35% group (33.3%). Whether patients had LBBAP or left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), patients in the LVEF > 35% group showed significantly lower incidence of heart failure hospitalizations or death from any cause (hazard ratio in LVEF > 35% group, 0.22; 95%CI, 0.06 to 0.75, P = 0.011).ConclusionsLBBAP can significantly shorten the QRSd and improve cardiac function in LBBB patients with either LVEF > 35 or ≤ 35%. LBBAP should be considered as an effective therapy for preventing the deterioration of cardiac function in early-stage heart failure patients with LBBB and LVEF > 35%.
| S-EPMC8968131 | biostudies-literature