• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

急性心肌梗死合并完全性束支传导阻滞的短期和长期预后重要性。

Short- and long-term prognostic importance of complete bundle-branch block complicating acute myocardial infarction.

作者信息

Dubois C, Piérard L A, Smeets J P, Foidart G, Legrand V, Kulbertus H E

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, University Hospital, Liège, Belgium.

出版信息

Clin Cardiol. 1988 May;11(5):292-6. doi: 10.1002/clc.4960110504.

DOI:10.1002/clc.4960110504
PMID:3383467
Abstract

Among 1013 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), 104 (10%) developed complete bundle-branch block (BBB). The clinical characteristics and the short- and long-term prognosis were similar in the 53 patients with right and the 51 patients with left BBB. Compared to the 909 patients without this conduction disturbance, these 104 patients were older (64 +/- 9 vs. 58 +/- 10 years, p less than 0.001), more frequently women (26 vs. 17%, p less than 0.05), had a larger infarct (peak CK 1672 +/- 1124 vs. 1356 +/- 1089 IU/l, p less than 0.001), more frequently anterior (60 vs. 37%, p less than 0.001). They had a higher incidence of Killip class greater than 1 (63 vs. 38%, p less than 0.001), pericarditis (40 vs. 23%, p less than 0.001), atrial fibrillation or flutter (22 vs. 12%, p less than 0.01), ventricular fibrillation (15 vs. 9%, p less than 0.05), and atrioventricular block (23 vs. 11%, p less than 0.001). Both hospital mortality (32 vs 10%, p less than 0.001) and 3-year posthospital mortality (37 vs. 18%, p less than 0.001) were much higher among patients with complete BBB. Transient BBB had the same deleterious prognosis as BBB persistent at discharge (mortality 33 vs. 39%, NS). The prognostic importance of BBB was more prominent during the first 6 months after infarction (mortality between 6 and 36 months: 18% with BBB vs. 11% without BBB, NS).

摘要

在1013例连续的急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者中,104例(10%)发生了完全性束支传导阻滞(BBB)。53例右束支传导阻滞患者和51例左束支传导阻滞患者的临床特征以及短期和长期预后相似。与909例无此传导障碍的患者相比,这104例患者年龄更大(64±9岁对58±10岁,p<0.001),女性更常见(26%对17%,p<0.05),梗死面积更大(肌酸激酶峰值1672±1124对1356±1089 IU/L,p<0.001),前壁梗死更常见(60%对37%,p<0.001)。他们Killip分级大于1级的发生率更高(63%对38%,p<0.001),心包炎发生率更高(40%对23%,p<0.001),房颤或房扑发生率更高(22%对12%,p<0.01),室颤发生率更高(15%对9%,p<0.05),房室传导阻滞发生率更高(23%对11%,p<0.001)。完全性BBB患者的住院死亡率(32%对10%,p<0.001)和出院后3年死亡率(37%对18%,p<0.001)都高得多。短暂性BBB与出院时持续性BBB具有相同的不良预后(死亡率33%对39%,无显著性差异)。BBB的预后重要性在梗死后的前6个月更为突出(6至36个月的死亡率:有BBB者为18%,无BBB者为11%,无显著性差异)。

相似文献

1
Short- and long-term prognostic importance of complete bundle-branch block complicating acute myocardial infarction.急性心肌梗死合并完全性束支传导阻滞的短期和长期预后重要性。
Clin Cardiol. 1988 May;11(5):292-6. doi: 10.1002/clc.4960110504.
2
The role of arrhythmia and left ventricular dysfunction in patients with acute myocardial infarction and bundle branch block.心律失常和左心室功能障碍在急性心肌梗死合并束支传导阻滞患者中的作用。
Jpn Heart J. 1993 Mar;34(2):145-57. doi: 10.1536/ihj.34.145.
3
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.急性心肌梗死中新增永久性右束支或左束支传导阻滞与短期及长期死亡率的关系 束支传导阻滞与心肌梗死
Am J Cardiol. 2015 Oct 1;116(7):1003-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.07.019. Epub 2015 Jul 16.
4
[Intraventricular conduction disorders in acute myocardial infarction: early and late clinical significance].[急性心肌梗死时的室内传导障碍:早期及晚期的临床意义]
Rev Med Chil. 1989 Dec;117(12):1381-6.
5
Prognostic significance of bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction: the importance of location and time of appearance.束支传导阻滞在急性心肌梗死中的预后意义:出现部位和时间的重要性
Clin Cardiol. 2001 May;24(5):371-6. doi: 10.1002/clc.4960240505.
6
Incidence and clinical impact of right bundle branch block in patients with acute myocardial infarction: ST elevation myocardial infarction versus non-ST elevation myocardial infarction.急性心肌梗死患者右束支传导阻滞的发生率及临床影响:ST段抬高型心肌梗死与非ST段抬高型心肌梗死的比较
Am Heart J. 2008 Aug;156(2):256-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.03.003. Epub 2008 Jun 20.
7
Long-term prognostic significance of atrioventricular block in inferior acute myocardial infarction.
Eur Heart J. 1989 Sep;10(9):816-20. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a059575.
8
Left anterior hemiblock in acute myocardial infarction. Incidence and clinical significance in relation to the presence of bundle branch block and to the absence of intraventricular conduction defects.急性心肌梗死中的左前分支阻滞。与束支阻滞的存在及无室内传导缺陷相关的发生率及临床意义。
Acta Med Scand. 1978;203(6):529-34.
9
Bundle branch block in acute Q wave inferior wall myocardial infarction. A high risk subgroup of inferior myocardial infarction patients. The SPRINT Study Group. Secondary Prevention Reinfarction Israeli Nifedipine Trial.急性Q波下壁心肌梗死中的束支传导阻滞。下壁心肌梗死患者的一个高危亚组。SPRINT研究组。以色列硝苯地平二级预防再梗死试验。
Eur Heart J. 1995 Apr;16(4):471-7. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a060938.
10
Prognostic implications of bundle branch block in patients undergoing primary coronary angioplasty in the stent era.支架时代行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者束支传导阻滞的预后意义。
Am J Cardiol. 2010 May 1;105(9):1276-83. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.12.044. Epub 2010 Mar 11.

引用本文的文献

1
Primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction with right bundle branch block: should new onset right bundle branch block be added to future guidelines as an indication for reperfusion therapy?急性心肌梗死合并右束支传导阻滞患者的直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗:新发右束支传导阻滞是否应作为再灌注治疗的适应证加入未来的指南中?
Eur Heart J. 2012 Jan;33(1):86-95. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr291. Epub 2011 Sep 1.
2
Location of acute myocardial infarction and associated arrhythmias and outcome.急性心肌梗死的部位与相关心律失常及其结局。
Clin Cardiol. 2009 May;32(5):274-7. doi: 10.1002/clc.20357.
3
Prognostic significance of bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction: the importance of location and time of appearance.
束支传导阻滞在急性心肌梗死中的预后意义:出现部位和时间的重要性
Clin Cardiol. 2001 May;24(5):371-6. doi: 10.1002/clc.4960240505.