Cardiology Department, Santa Marta Hospital, Portugal.
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018 Apr;7(3):218-223. doi: 10.1177/2048872617716387. Epub 2017 Jun 15.
The aim was to characterise acute coronary syndrome patients with complete atrioventricular block and to assess the effect on outcome.
Patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome were divided according to the presence of complete atrioventricular block: group 1, with complete atrioventricular block; group 2, without complete atrioventricular block. Clinical, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic characteristics and prognosis during one year follow-up were compared between the groups.
Among 4799 acute coronary syndrome patients admitted during the study period, 91 (1.9%) presented with complete atrioventricular block. At presentation, group 1 patients presented with lower systolic blood pressure, higher Killip class and incidence of syncope. In group 1, 86.8% presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and inferior STEMI was verified in 79.1% of patients in group 1 compared with 21.9% in group 2 ( P<0.001). Right ventricular myocardial infarction was more frequent in group 1 (3.3% vs. 0.2%; P<0.001). Among patients who underwent fibrinolysis complete atrioventricular block was observed in 7.3% in contrast to 2.5% in patients submitted to primary percutaneous coronary intervention ( P<0.001). During hospitalisation group 1 had worse outcomes, with a higher incidence of cardiogenic shock (33.0% vs. 4.5%; P<0.001), ventricular arrhythmias (17.6% vs. 3.6%; P<0.001) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (25.3% vs. 5.1%; P<0.001). After a propensity score analysis, in a multivariate regression model, complete atrioventricular block was an independent predictor of hospital mortality (odds ratio 3.671; P=0.045). There was no significant difference in mortality at one-year follow-up between the study groups.
Complete atrioventricular block conferred a worse outcome during hospitalisation, including a higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, ventricular arrhythmias and death.
本研究旨在分析急性冠脉综合征合并完全性房室传导阻滞患者的临床特征,并评估其对预后的影响。
连续入选急性冠脉综合征患者,根据是否合并完全性房室传导阻滞分为两组:完全性房室传导阻滞组(组 1)和无完全性房室传导阻滞组(组 2)。比较两组患者的临床、心电图和超声心动图特征以及 1 年随访结果。
研究期间共入选 4799 例急性冠脉综合征患者,其中 91 例(1.9%)合并完全性房室传导阻滞。与组 2 相比,组 1 患者入院时收缩压更低、Killip 分级更高、晕厥发生率更高。组 1 患者中 86.8%为 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI),下壁 STEMI 占 79.1%,而组 2 仅为 21.9%(P<0.001)。组 1 患者中右心室心肌梗死更常见(3.3%比 0.2%;P<0.001)。行溶栓治疗的患者中,完全性房室传导阻滞的发生率为 7.3%,而行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者中仅为 2.5%(P<0.001)。住院期间组 1 患者的预后更差,心源性休克发生率更高(33.0%比 4.5%;P<0.001)、室性心律失常发生率更高(17.6%比 3.6%;P<0.001)、需要有创机械通气的比例更高(25.3%比 5.1%;P<0.001)。多因素回归分析显示,完全性房室传导阻滞是住院期间死亡的独立预测因素(比值比 3.671;P=0.045)。两组患者在 1 年随访时的死亡率无显著差异。
急性冠脉综合征合并完全性房室传导阻滞患者住院期间预后更差,心源性休克、室性心律失常和死亡的发生率更高。