Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug;105(15):1160-1167.
doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314295. Epub 2019 May 25.

Clinical implications of electrocardiographic bundle branch block in primary care

Affiliations

Clinical implications of electrocardiographic bundle branch block in primary care

Peter Vibe Rasmussen et al. Heart. 2019 Aug.

Abstract

Objectives: Electrocardiographic bundle branch block (BBB) is common but the prognostic implications in primary care are unclear. We sought to investigate the relationship between electrocardiographic BBB subtypes and the risk of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in a primary care population free of major CV disease.

Methods: Retrospective cohort study of primary care patients referred for electrocardiogram (ECG) recording between 2001 and 2011. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) as well as absolute risks of CV outcomes based on various BBB subtypes.

Results: We included 202 268 individuals with a median follow-up period of 7.8 years (Inter-quartile range [IQR] 4.9-10.6). Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was associated with heart failure (HF) in both men (HR 3.96, 95% CI 3.30 to 4.76) and women (HR 2.51, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.94) and with CV death in men (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.35). Right bundle branch block (RBBB) was associated with pacemaker implantation in both men (HR 3.26, 95% CI 2.74 to 3.89) and women (HR 3.69, 95% CI 2.91 to 4.67), HF in both sexes and weakly associated with CV death in men. Regarding LBBB, we found an increasing hazard of HF with increasing QRS-interval duration (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42 per 10 ms increase in men and HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.40 per 10 ms increase in women). Absolute 10-year risk predictions across age-specific and sex-specific subgroups revealed clinically relevant differences between having various BBB subtypes.

Conclusions: Opportunistic findings of BBB subtypes in primary care patients without major CV disease should be considered warnings of future HF and pacemaker implantation.

Keywords: cardiac risk factors and prevention; electrocardiography; heart failure; pacemakers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: AGH is an employee of Novo Nordisk A/S.

Comment in

Publication types