Is there a prognostic relevance of electrophysiological studies in bundle branch block patients?
- PMID: 28294370
- PMCID: PMC6490465
- DOI: 10.1002/clc.22700
Is there a prognostic relevance of electrophysiological studies in bundle branch block patients?
Abstract
Background: The present European guidelines suggest a diagnostic electrophysiological (EP) study to determine indication for cardiac pacing in patients with bundle branch block and unexplained syncope. We evaluated the prognostic relevance of an EP study for mortality and the development of permanent complete atrioventricular (AV) block in patients with symptomatic bifascicular block and first-degree AV block.
Hypothesis: The HV interval is a poor prognostic marker to predict the development of permanent AV block in patients with symptomatic bifascicular block (BFB) and AV block I°.
Methods: Thirty consecutive patients (mean age, 74.8 ± 8.6 years; 25 males) with symptomatic BFB and first-degree AV block underwent an EP study before device implantation, according to current guidelines. For 53 ± 31 months, patients underwent yearly follow-up screening for syncope or higher-degree AV block.
Results: Thirty patients presented with prolonged HV interval during the EP study (mean, 82.2 ± 20.1 ms; range, 57-142 ms), classified into 3 groups: group 1, <70 ms (mean, 62 ± 4 ms; range, 57-67 ms; n = 7), group 2, >70 to ≤100 ms (mean, 80 ± 8 ms; range, 70-97 ms; n = 18), and group 3, >100 ms (mean, 119 ± 14 ms; range, 107-142 ms; n = 5). According to the guidelines, patients in groups 2 and 3 received a pacemaker. The length of the HV interval was not associated with the later development of third-degree AV block or with increased mortality.
Conclusions: Our present study suggests that an indication for pacemaker implantation based solely on a diagnostic EP study with prolongation of the HV interval is not justified.
Keywords: AV Block; HV Interval; PACEMAKER; SYNCOPE; Bifascicular Block; Implantable Loop Recorder.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Pine MB, Oren M, Ciafone R, et al. Excess mortality and morbidity associated with right bundle branch and left anterior fascicular block. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1983;1:1207–1212. - PubMed
-
- Zhang ZM, Rautaharju PM, Soliman EZ, et al. Mortality risk associated with bundle branch blocks and related repolarization abnormalities (from the Women's Health Initiative [WHI]). Am J Cardiol. 2012;110:1489–1495. - PubMed
-
- Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron‐Esquivias G, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the task force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) . Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace. 2013;15:1070–1118. - PubMed
-
- Twidale N, Heddle WF, Tonkin AM. Procainamide administration during electrophysiology study—utility as a provocative test for intermittent atrioventricular block. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1988;11:1388–1397. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
