Suppr超能文献

更严格的左束支传导阻滞诊断标准并不能改善心脏再同步治疗(CRT)的疗效。

Stricter criteria for left bundle branch block diagnosis do not improve response to CRT.

作者信息

Bertaglia Emanuele, Migliore Federico, Baritussio Anna, De Simone Antonio, Reggiani Albino, Pecora Domenico, D'Onofrio Antonio, Rapacciuolo Antonio, Savarese Gianluca, Pierantozzi Attilio, Marenna Biondino, Ruffa Franco, Campari Monica, Malacrida Maurizio, Stabile Giuseppe

机构信息

Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, and Vascular Sciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.

San Michele Clinic, Maddaloni, CE, Italy.

出版信息

Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 Jul;40(7):850-856. doi: 10.1111/pace.13104. Epub 2017 Jun 30.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has proved to be effective in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB). Recently, new electrocardiography criteria have been proposed for the diagnosis of LBBB. These criteria are stricter than the current American Heart Association (AHA) criteria. We assessed the rate of echocardiographic response to CRT in patients with traditional LBBB versus patients who met the new criteria (strict LBBB).

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing CRT were enrolled in the CRT MORE registry. Patients with no-LBBB QRS morphology according to AHA criteria, atrial fibrillation, right bundle branch block, and right ventricular pacing were excluded. Strict LBBB was defined as: QRS ≥ 140 ms for men and ≥130 ms for women, QS or rS in V1-V2, mid-QRS notching or slurring in ≥2 contiguous leads. Patients showing a relative decrease of ≥15% in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) at 12 months were defined as responders.

RESULTS

Among 335 patients with LBBB, 131 (39%) had strict LBBB. Patients with and without strict LBBB showed comparable baseline characteristics, except for QRS duration (166 ± 20 ms vs 152 ± 25 ms, P < 0.001). On 12-month evaluation, 205 patients (61%) were responders; 85 of 131 (65%) had strict LBBB and 120 of 204 (59%) had traditional LBBB (P = 0.267). On multivariate analysis, a history of atrial fibrillation, larger LVESV, and the presence of mid-QRS notching in ≥1 lead (odds ratio 2.099; 95% confidence interval 1.061-4.152, P = 0.033) were independently associated with echocardiographic response.

CONCLUSION

Stricter definition of LBBB did not improve response to CRT in comparison to the current AHA definition.

摘要

背景

心脏再同步治疗(CRT)已被证明对心力衰竭合并左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)患者有效。最近,已提出用于诊断LBBB的新心电图标准。这些标准比当前美国心脏协会(AHA)的标准更严格。我们评估了传统LBBB患者与符合新标准(严格LBBB)患者对CRT的超声心动图反应率。

方法

连续接受CRT治疗的患者被纳入CRT MORE注册研究。根据AHA标准,排除无LBBB QRS形态、心房颤动、右束支传导阻滞和右心室起搏的患者。严格LBBB定义为:男性QRS≥140毫秒,女性≥130毫秒,V1-V2导联呈QS或rS型,≥2个连续导联出现QRS波峰中点切迹或顿挫。在12个月时左心室收缩末期容积(LVESV)相对减少≥15%的患者被定义为反应者。

结果

在335例LBBB患者中,131例(39%)为严格LBBB。除QRS时限外(166±20毫秒对152±25毫秒,P<0.001),有和没有严格LBBB的患者基线特征具有可比性。在12个月评估时,205例患者(61%)为反应者;131例中的85例(65%)为严格LBBB,204例中的120例(59%)为传统LBBB(P=0.267)。多因素分析显示,心房颤动病史、较大的LVESV以及≥1个导联出现QRS波峰中点切迹(比值比2.099;95%置信区间1.061-4.152,P=0.033)与超声心动图反应独立相关。

结论

与当前AHA定义相比,对LBBB更严格的定义并未改善对CRT的反应。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验