150.00 rub.
Buy article

Myocardial Infarction at the Background of Left Bundle Branch Block in the RECORD-3 Registry – Management and Prognosis

Erlikh A. D.1, Dzhinibalaeva Zh. B.2, Kiselev A. R.3, Posnenkova O. M.3, Duplyakov D. V.2, 4 and the RECORD-3 Registry Participants
1Federal Scientific-Clinical Centrum of Physico-Chemical Medicine of Federal medico-biological Agency RF, Moscow, Russia
2Samara Regional Cardiology Dispensary, Samara, Russia
3Saratov State Medical University named after V. I. Razumovsky, Saratov, Russia
4Samara State Medical University, Samara, Russia

Keywords: acute coronary syndrome; myocardial infarction; left bundle brunch block; prognosis

DOI: 10.18087/cardio.2017.7.10002

Purpose. To study prognostic value of left bundle brunch block (LBBB) in patients with verified myocardial infarction in real clinical practice. Material and methods. This analysis has been based on data from the RECORD-3 registry. This registry enrolled consecutive patients hospitalized in participating centers with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Among 2368 included patients 91 (3.84%) had LBBB on admission ECG (“new” in 25 [27.4%], “old” in 28 [30.8%]), and of “undetermined duration” in 38 [41.8%]). Myocardial infarction (MI) was verified in 871 patients, 48 of them (5.5%) had LBBB. Results. MI patients with compared with those without LBBB were significantly older (70.5 vs. 64 years, p=0.011), more often had history of MI and cerebral catastrophes, effort angina, symptoms of chronic heart failure and renal pathology. Patients with LBBB twice more often complained of dyspnea/suffocation and had significantly lower mean ejection fraction (44 vs 52%, p=0.001). At prehospital stage, they less often received aspirin, clopidogrel, β-adrenoblockers. Patients with LBBB more often required artificial pulmonary ventilation (APV) and temporary cardiac pacing, and were less often subjected to reperfusion strategy (52.1 vs. 85%, p<0.001). Coronary angiography was carried out in 37.5 and 64.1% (p<0.001), primary percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 25 and 46.4% (p=0.0004) of patients in groups with and without LBBB, respectively. Patients with LBBB had more than 2 times higher risk of death during hospitalization (14.6 vs. 6.3%, p<0.027), without significant difference between “new” and “old” block. Multifactorial regression analysis revealed the following independent factors of unfavorable prognosis: necessity of APV, requirement in pressor drugs during first 24 hours and thereafter, heart rate on day two. Conclusion. High hospital mortality of patients with MI with LBBB was due to not simply the presence of LBBB on ECG but older age, severity of condition at admission, and high number of concomitant diseases.
  1. 2009 Focused Updates: ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Updating the 2004 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI Guidelines on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (Updating the 2005 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update). A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2009;120:2271–2306.
  2. Gunnarsson G., Eriksson P., Dellborg M. Continuous ST-segment monitoring of patients with left bundle branch block and suspicion of acute myocardial infarction. J Int Med 2004;255:571–578.
  3. Duplyakov D. V., Khokhlunov S. M., Tukhbatova A. A. et al. Acute coronary syndrome with ST segment elevation: the possibility of a hospital register. Cardiology and cardiovascular surgery 2010;4:27–31. Russian (Дупляков Д. В., Хохлунов С. М., Тухбатова А. А. и др. Острый коронарный синдром с подъемом сегмента ST: возможности госпитального регистра. Кардиология и сердечно-сосудистая хирургия 2010;4:27–31).
  4. Lotina A. S., Duplyakov D. V., Erlikh A. D. Prognostic value of left bundle branch block in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Cardiology 2013;7:35–39. Russian (Лотина А. С., Дупляков Д. В., Эрлих А. Д. Прогностическое значение блокады левой ножки пучка Гиса у пациентов с острым коронарным синдромом. Кардиология 2013;7:35–39).
  5. Hassi M., Kunstmann S., Corbalán R. et al. Intraventricular conduction disorders in acute myocardial infarction: early and late clinical significance. Rev Med Chil 1989;117:1381–1386.
  6. Shlipak M.G., Go A.S., Frederick P.D. et al. Treatment and outcomes of left bundle-branch block patients with myocardial infarction who present without chest pain. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 Investigators. JAm Coll Cardiol 2000;36:706–712.
  7. Guerrero M., Harjai K., Stone G.W. et al. Comparison of the prognostic effect of left versus right versus no bundle branch block on presenting electrocardiogram in acute myocardial infarction patients treated with primary angioplasty in the primary angioplasty in myocardial infarction trials. Am J Cardiol 2005;96:482–488.
  8. Melgarejo-Moreno A., Galcerá-Tomás J., Consuegra-Sánchez L., et al. Relation of New Permanent Right or Left Bundle Branch Block on Short- and Long-Term Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Bundle Branch Block and Myocardial Infarction. Am J Cardiol 2015;116:1003–1009.
  9. Stenestrand U., Tabrizi F., Lindbäck J. et al. Comorbidity and myocardial dysfunction are the main explanations for the higher 1-year mortality in acute myocardial infarction with left bundle-branch block. Circulation 2004;110:1896–1902.
  10. Wong C.K., Stewart R.A., Gao W., et al. Prognostic differences between different types of bundle branch block during the early phase of acute myocardial infarction: insights from the Hirulog and Early Reperfusion or Occlusion (HERO) – 2 trial. Eur Heart J 2006;27:21–28.
  11. Sgarbossa E.B., Pinski S.L., Barbagelata A. et al. Electrocardiographic diagnosis of evolving acute myocardial infarction in the presence of left bundle-branch block. N Engl J Med 1996;334:481–487.
Erlikh A. D., Dzhinibalaeva Zh. B., Kiselev A. R., Posnenkova O. M., Duplyakov D. V. Myocardial Infarction at the Background of Left Bundle Branch Block in the RECORD-3 Registry – Management and Prognosis. Kardiologiia. 2017;57(7):20–26.

To access this material please log in or register

Register Authorize
Ru En