Prognostic Impact of Bundle Branch Block After Acute Coronary Syndrome. Does It Matter If It Is Left of Right?

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Timóteo, AT
Publication Date: 2019
Other Authors: Mendonça, T, Aguiar Rosa, S, Gonçalves, A, Carvalho, R, Ferreira, ML, Cruz Ferreira, R
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Download full: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3418
Summary: Background: In previous guidelines, acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with new or presumably new left bundle branch block (LBBB) were an indication for reperfusion treatment, preferably with primary angioplasty. Recent guidelines also included the presence of right bundle branch block (RBBB) in this recommendation. It was our objective to evaluate in a population of patients with ACS the differential impact of RBBB and LBBB in prognosis. Methods: Consecutive patients included prospectively in a single-centre registry of ACS were included in the study. Patients were analyzed according to baseline ECG characteristics (normal QRS, LBBB or RBBB). Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at one-year follow-up. We used Cox-proportional hazards models to assess the predictive value for the primary outcome. Results: A total of 3990 patients were included in, with a mean age of 64 (13) years, 72% males, 3.4% with LBBB and 4.3% with RBBB. Patients with BBB were older, with more previous history of myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization and higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (except smoking). Medical treatment was similar but they were less often submitted to angioplasty. In univariate analysis, BBB patients had worst outcome (Log-rank, p < 0.001), but similar in LBBB and RBBB (Log-rank, p = 0.597). In multivariate analysis, only RBBB (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.14-2.40, p = 0.007) is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Patients with BBB have worst outcome after an ACS, particularly with RBBB. For that reason, we should pay special attention and treat these patients as aggressively as patients with normal QRS duration or LBBB.
id RCAP_1fb5dade3dde4ed27ab80fc727dec6b9
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.chlc.pt:10400.17/3418
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Prognostic Impact of Bundle Branch Block After Acute Coronary Syndrome. Does It Matter If It Is Left of Right?HSM CARAcute Coronary SyndromesBundle Branch BlockPrognosisBackground: In previous guidelines, acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with new or presumably new left bundle branch block (LBBB) were an indication for reperfusion treatment, preferably with primary angioplasty. Recent guidelines also included the presence of right bundle branch block (RBBB) in this recommendation. It was our objective to evaluate in a population of patients with ACS the differential impact of RBBB and LBBB in prognosis. Methods: Consecutive patients included prospectively in a single-centre registry of ACS were included in the study. Patients were analyzed according to baseline ECG characteristics (normal QRS, LBBB or RBBB). Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at one-year follow-up. We used Cox-proportional hazards models to assess the predictive value for the primary outcome. Results: A total of 3990 patients were included in, with a mean age of 64 (13) years, 72% males, 3.4% with LBBB and 4.3% with RBBB. Patients with BBB were older, with more previous history of myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization and higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (except smoking). Medical treatment was similar but they were less often submitted to angioplasty. In univariate analysis, BBB patients had worst outcome (Log-rank, p < 0.001), but similar in LBBB and RBBB (Log-rank, p = 0.597). In multivariate analysis, only RBBB (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.14-2.40, p = 0.007) is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Patients with BBB have worst outcome after an ACS, particularly with RBBB. For that reason, we should pay special attention and treat these patients as aggressively as patients with normal QRS duration or LBBB.ElsevierRepositório da Unidade Local de Saúde São JoséTimóteo, ATMendonça, TAguiar Rosa, SGonçalves, ACarvalho, RFerreira, MLCruz Ferreira, R2020-02-06T13:20:32Z2019-032019-03-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3418eng10.1016/j.ijcha.2018.11.006info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2025-03-06T16:52:23Zoai:repositorio.chlc.pt:10400.17/3418Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-29T00:23:17.259496Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Prognostic Impact of Bundle Branch Block After Acute Coronary Syndrome. Does It Matter If It Is Left of Right?
title Prognostic Impact of Bundle Branch Block After Acute Coronary Syndrome. Does It Matter If It Is Left of Right?
spellingShingle Prognostic Impact of Bundle Branch Block After Acute Coronary Syndrome. Does It Matter If It Is Left of Right?
Timóteo, AT
HSM CAR
Acute Coronary Syndromes
Bundle Branch Block
Prognosis
title_short Prognostic Impact of Bundle Branch Block After Acute Coronary Syndrome. Does It Matter If It Is Left of Right?
title_full Prognostic Impact of Bundle Branch Block After Acute Coronary Syndrome. Does It Matter If It Is Left of Right?
title_fullStr Prognostic Impact of Bundle Branch Block After Acute Coronary Syndrome. Does It Matter If It Is Left of Right?
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic Impact of Bundle Branch Block After Acute Coronary Syndrome. Does It Matter If It Is Left of Right?
title_sort Prognostic Impact of Bundle Branch Block After Acute Coronary Syndrome. Does It Matter If It Is Left of Right?
author Timóteo, AT
author_facet Timóteo, AT
Mendonça, T
Aguiar Rosa, S
Gonçalves, A
Carvalho, R
Ferreira, ML
Cruz Ferreira, R
author_role author
author2 Mendonça, T
Aguiar Rosa, S
Gonçalves, A
Carvalho, R
Ferreira, ML
Cruz Ferreira, R
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório da Unidade Local de Saúde São José
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Timóteo, AT
Mendonça, T
Aguiar Rosa, S
Gonçalves, A
Carvalho, R
Ferreira, ML
Cruz Ferreira, R
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv HSM CAR
Acute Coronary Syndromes
Bundle Branch Block
Prognosis
topic HSM CAR
Acute Coronary Syndromes
Bundle Branch Block
Prognosis
description Background: In previous guidelines, acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with new or presumably new left bundle branch block (LBBB) were an indication for reperfusion treatment, preferably with primary angioplasty. Recent guidelines also included the presence of right bundle branch block (RBBB) in this recommendation. It was our objective to evaluate in a population of patients with ACS the differential impact of RBBB and LBBB in prognosis. Methods: Consecutive patients included prospectively in a single-centre registry of ACS were included in the study. Patients were analyzed according to baseline ECG characteristics (normal QRS, LBBB or RBBB). Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at one-year follow-up. We used Cox-proportional hazards models to assess the predictive value for the primary outcome. Results: A total of 3990 patients were included in, with a mean age of 64 (13) years, 72% males, 3.4% with LBBB and 4.3% with RBBB. Patients with BBB were older, with more previous history of myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization and higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (except smoking). Medical treatment was similar but they were less often submitted to angioplasty. In univariate analysis, BBB patients had worst outcome (Log-rank, p < 0.001), but similar in LBBB and RBBB (Log-rank, p = 0.597). In multivariate analysis, only RBBB (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.14-2.40, p = 0.007) is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Patients with BBB have worst outcome after an ACS, particularly with RBBB. For that reason, we should pay special attention and treat these patients as aggressively as patients with normal QRS duration or LBBB.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-03
2019-03-01T00:00:00Z
2020-02-06T13:20:32Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3418
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3418
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1016/j.ijcha.2018.11.006
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833600514717122560