Left bundle branch block induces ventricular remodelling and functional septal hypoperfusion

Pacing stress echocardiography

Background

High-rate pacing is a valid stress test to be used in conjunction with echocardiography; it is independent of physical exercise and does not require drug administration. There are two main applications of pacing stress in the echo lab: the noninvasive detection of coronary artery disease through induction of a regional transient dysfunction; and the assessment of contractile reserve through peak systolic pressure/ end-systolic volume relationship at increasing heart rates to assess global left ventricular contractility.

Methods

The pathophysiologic rationale of pacing stress for noninvasive detection of coronary artery disease is obvious, with the stress determined by a controlled increase in heart rate, which is a major determinant of myocardial oxygen demand, and thereby tachycardia may exceed a fixed coronary flow reserve in the presence of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. The use of pacing stress echo to assess left ventricular contractile reserve is less established, but promising. Positive inotropic interventions are mirrored by smaller end-systolic volumes and higher end-systolic pressures. An increased heart rate progressively increases the force of ventricular contraction (Bowditch treppe or staircase phenomenon). To build the force-frequency relationship, the force is determined at different heart rate steps as the ratio of the systolic pressure (cuff sphygmomanometer)/end-systolic volume index (biplane Simpson rule). The heart rate is determined from ECG.

Conclusion

Two-dimensional echocardiography during pacing is a useful tool in the detection of coronary artery disease. Because of its safety and ease of repeatability noninvasive pacing stress echo can be the first-line stress test in patients with permanent pacemaker.

The force-frequency can be defined as up- sloping (normal) when the peak stress pacing systolic pressure/end-systolic volume index is higher than baseline and intermediate stress values, biphasic with an initial up- sloping followed by a later down-sloping trend, or flat or negative when peak stress pacing systolic pressure/end-systolic volume index is equal or lower than baseline stress values. This approach is certainly highly feasible and allows a conceptually immaculate definition of contractility with prognostic usefulness, but its therapeutic implications remains to be established. Bowditch treppe, assessed with pacing stress, can be used to assess the optimal stimulation frequency and to optimise the patient's chronotropic response in programming rate-adaptive pacemakers.

Left Bundle Branch Block Disturbs Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery Flow: Study Using Transthoracic Doppler Echocardiography

BACKGROUND

This study was performed to evaluate the influence of left bundle branch block (LBBB) on left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) flow.

METHODS

We divided 89 subjects (34 males and 55 females, mean age 64 +/- 14 years) into an LBBB group (n = 40), a right ventricular (RV) pacing group (n = 26), and a control group (n = 23). All of the patients were examined with surface electrocardiography (ECG) and underwent transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (TTE) to measure QRS duration on the ECG, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV). Coronary flow velocity was measured in the distal LAD with TTE, and the percentage of diastolic flow duration (%DD) was expressed as the percentage of diastolic duration of coronary artery flow divided by the R-R interval.

RESULTS

The %DD of the LAD was significantly shorter in the LBBB group (40.4% +/- 12.4%) with LVEF < 50% than in the RV pacing group (60.3% +/- 7.3%) and the control group (59.3% +/- 7.6%) (P < .01 vs the control and RV pacing groups), and it was also significantly shorter in the LBBB group (49.3% +/- 10.5%) with LVEF > or = 50% than in the control and RV pacing groups (P < .01 vs the control and RV pacing groups). In the LBBB group, the %DD of the LAD had a positive correlation with LVEF (P < .05; r = .50), a negative correlation with LVEDV (P < .05; r = -.57), and a negative correlation with QRS duration (P < .05; r = -.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike RV pacing, LBBB itself can disturb the coronary perfusion of the LAD through shortening of the diastolic flow duration. Furthermore, systolic dysfunction potentiates the shortening effect of diastolic flow duration by LBBB. Whether left ventricular systolic dysfunction is the result of the coronary flow disturbance by LBBB or vice versa merits further investigation.