Open AccessIs there a prognostic relevance of electrophysiological studies in bundle branch block patients?
Author(s) -
Bogossian Harilaos,
Frommeyer Gerrit,
Göbbert Kornelius,
Hasan Fuad,
Nguyen Quy Suu,
Ninios Ilias,
Mijic Dejan,
Bandorski Dirk,
Hoeltgen Reinhard,
Seyfarth Melchior,
Lemke Bernd,
Eckardt Lars,
Zarse Markus
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
clinical cardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.263
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1932-8737
pISSN - 0160-9289
DOI - 10.1002/clc.22700
Subject(s) - medicine , atrioventricular block , bundle branch block , pr interval , right bundle branch block , cardiology , left bundle branch block , syncope (phonology) , clinical significance , interquartile range , electrocardiography , heart failure , heart rate , blood pressure
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.