Melgarejo-Moreno A, Galcerá-Tomás J, Garciá-Alberola A, Valdés-Chavarri M, Castillo-Soria F J, Mira-Sánchez E, Gil-Sánchez J, Allegue-Gallego J
Hospital Virgen del Rosell de Cartagena, Murcia, Spain.
Circulation. 1997 Aug 19;96(4):1139-44. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.96.4.1139.
Whereas the significance of right bundle-branch block (RBBB) in acute myocardial infarction was extensively studied in the prethrombolytic era, a possible change in the overall incidence and meaning of RBBB as a consequence of thrombolytic therapy is not well known.
A multicenter, prospective study of 1238 patients consecutively diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction and admitted to three coronary care units was conducted. ECGs during the acute phase and clinical events until discharge and 1-year follow-up were monitored. In the 135 (10.9%) patients in whom RBBB was found, there were 51 (37.8%) new cases, 46 (34.1%) old cases, and 38 (28.1%) cases with an indeterminate time of origin. New RBBB was permanent in 26 and transient in 25 patients. RBBB was isolated in 76 (56%) and bifascicular in the remaining 59 (44%) patients. The following complications were more frequently associated with RBBB than non-RBBB patients: heart failure, 24% versus 46% (P<.001); use of pacemaker because of atrioventricular block, 3.6% versus 11% (P<.001); and 1-year mortality, 17.6% versus 40.7% (P<.001). Early mortality was significantly higher for new RBBB (43.1%, P<.001) than for old (15.5%) and indeterminate (15.3%) RBBB. These figures for 1-year mortality were 58.8% (P<.001), 35.5 (P<.01), and 23% (NS), respectively. Permanent and transient RBBB had different mortality rates: early mortality, 76% versus 8%, and 1-year mortality, 84% versus 32% (P<.001 for both). For isolated RBBB versus bifascicular block, early mortality was 14.4% versus 40.6%, and 1-year mortality was 30.2% versus 54.2% (P<.05 for both). Multivariate analysis showed an independent prognostic value of RBBB for early and 1-year mortality.
The overall meaning of RBBB in acute myocardial infarction has not changed in the thrombolytic era, although a higher rate of new and transient RBBB and a lower rate of bifascicular block may represent a beneficial effect of thrombolytic therapy.
