Syncope and bundle branch block: Diagnostic approach

Arrhythmic syncope: From diagnosis to management

Syncope is a concerning symptom that affects a large proportion of patients. It can be related to a heterogeneous group of pathologies ranging from trivial causes to diseases with a high risk of sudden death. However, benign causes are the most frequent, and identifying high-risk patients with potentially severe etiologies is crucial to establish an accurate diagnosis, initiate effective therapy, and alter the prognosis. The term cardiac syncope refers to those episodes where the cause of the cerebral hypoperfusion is directly related to a cardiac disorder, while arrhythmic syncope is cardiac syncope specifically due to rhythm disorders. Indeed, arrhythmias are the most common cause of cardiac syncope. Both bradyarrhythmia and tachyarrhythmia can cause a sudden decrease in cardiac output and produce syncope. In this review, we summarized the main guidelines in the management of patients with syncope of presumed arrhythmic origin. Therefore, we presented a thorough approach to syncope work-up through different tests depending on the clinical characteristics of the patients, risk stratification, and the management of syncope in different scenarios such as structural heart disease and channelopathies.

Arrhythmic risk in single or recurrent episodes of unexplained syncope with complete bundle branch block

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Patients with a single syncopal episode (SSE) and complete bundle branch block (cBBB) are frequently managed more conservatively than patients with recurrent episodes (RSE). The objective of this study was to analyze if there are differences between patients with single or recurrent unexplained syncope and cBBB in arrhythmic risk, the diagnostic yield of tests, and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Cohort study of consecutive patients with unexplained syncope and cBBB with a median follow-up time of 3 years. The patients were evaluated via a stepwise workup protocol based on electrophysiological study (EPS) and long-term follow-up with an implantable cardiac monitor.

RESULTS

Of the 503 patients included in the study, 238 (47.3%) had had only 1 syncopal episode. The risk of an arrhythmic syncope was similar in both groups (58.8% in SSE vs 57.0% in RSE; P=.68), also after adjustment for possible confounding variables (HR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.81-1.38; P=.674). No significant differences between the groups were found in the EPS results and implantable cardiac monitor diagnostic yield. A total of 141 (59.2%) patients with SSE and 154 (58.1%) patients with RSE required cardiac device implantation (P=.797). After appropriate treatment, 35 (7%) patients had recurrence of syncope. The recurrence rate and mortality were also similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cBBB and unexplained syncope are at high risk of an arrhythmic etiology, even after the first syncopal episode. Patients with SSE and RSE have a similar arrhythmic risk and similar outcomes, and therefore there is no clinical justification for not managing them in the same manner.

Sex-Related Differences in Patients With Unexplained Syncope and Bundle Branch Block: Lower Risk of AV Block and Lesser Need for Cardiac Pacing in Women

Objective

To analyze if there are sex-related differences in patients with unexplained syncope and bundle branch block (BBB).

Background

Despite increasing awareness that sex is a major determinant of the incidence, etiology, and the outcomes of different arrhythmias, no studies have examined differences in presentation and outcomes between men and women with syncope and BBB.

Methods

Cohort study of consecutive patients with unexplained syncope and BBB was included from January 2010 to January 2021 with a median follow-up time of 3.4 years [interquartile range (IQR) 1.7–6.0 years]. They were evaluated by a stepwise workup protocol based on electrophysiological study (EPS) and long-term follow-up with an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM).

Results

Of the 443 patients included in the study, 165 (37.2%) were women. Compared with men, women had less diabetes (25.5 vs. 39.9%, p = 0.002) and less history of ischemic heart disease (IHD; 13.3 vs. 25.9%, p = 0.002). Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was more frequent in women (55.2 vs. 27.7%, p < 0.001) while right bundle branch block (RBBB) was more frequent in men (41.5 vs. 67.7%, p < 0.001). His to ventricle (HV) interval in the EPS was shorter in women (58 ms [IQR 52–71] vs. 60 ms [IQR 52–73], p = 0.035) and less women had an HV interval longer than 70 ms (28.5 vs. 38.1%, p = 0.039), however, EPS and ICM offered a similar diagnostic yield in both sexes (40.6 vs. 48.9% and 48.4% vs. 51.1%, respectively). Women had a lower risk of developing atrioventricular block (AVB) (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.44–95% CI 0.26–0.74, p = 0.002) and of requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.72–95% CI: 0.52–0.99, p = 0.046). The mortality rate was lower in women (4.5 per 100 person-years [95% CI 3.1–6.4 per 100 person-years] vs. 7.3 per 100 person-years [95% CI 5.9–9.1 per 100 person-years]).

Conclusions

Compared to men, women with unexplained syncope and BBB have a lower risk of AVB and of requiring cardiac pacing. A stepwise diagnostic approach has a similar diagnostic yield in both sexes, and it seems appropriate to guide the treatment and avoid unnecessary pacemaker implantation, especially in women.

Cardiac monitoring for patients with palpitations

Palpitations are one of the most common reasons for medical consultation. They tend to worry patients and can affect their quality of life. They are often a symptom associated with cardiac rhythm disorders, although there are other etiologies. For diagnosis, it is essential to be able to reliably correlate the symptoms with an electrocardiographic record allowing the identification or ruling out of a possible rhythm disorder. However, reaching a diagnosis is not always simple, given that they tend to be transitory symptoms and the patient is frequently asymptomatic at the time of assessment. In recent years, electrocardiographic monitoring systems have incorporated many technical improvements that solve several of the 24-h Holter monitor limitations. The objective of this review is to provide an update on the different monitoring methods currently available, remarking their indications and limitations, to help healthcare professionals to appropriately select and use them in the work-up of patients with palpitations.

Etiology and prognosis of patients with unexplained syncope and mid-range left ventricular dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Syncope in patients with mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) can be due to potentially serious arrhythmic causes. However, there is no clear consensus on the best way to manage these patients.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to determine the causes of syncope and assess the diagnostic yield and safety of a stepwise workup protocol in this population.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study. A stepwise workup protocol was applied to patients with LVEF 35%-50% and unexplained syncope after the initial assessment (step 1).

RESULTS

One hundred four patients were included {median age 75.6 years; (interquartile range [IQR] 67.6-81.2 years); median LVEF 45% (IQR 40%-48%); median follow-up 2.0 years (IQR 0.7-3.3 years). In 71 patients (68.3%), a diagnosis was reached: 55 (77.5%) in step 2 (hospital admission and electrophysiology study) and 16 (36.5%) in step 3 (implantable cardiac monitor). Arrhythmic causes were the most common etiology (45.2% auriculoventricular block and 9.6% ventricular tachycardia). Sixty patients (57.7%) required the implantation of a cardiac device and 11 had a defibrillation function. Patients diagnosed in step 3 had a higher global risk of recurrence of syncope (hazard ratio 6.5; 95% confidence interval 2.3-18.0). The mortality rate was 8.1 per 100 person-years, and the sudden or unknown death rate was 0.9 per 100 person-years.

CONCLUSION

In patients with mid-range left ventricular dysfunction and syncope of unknown cause, a systematic diagnostic strategy based on electrophysiology study and/or implantable cardiac monitor implantation allows a diagnosis to be reached in a high proportion of cases and guides the treatment. Arrhythmia is the most common cause of syncope in this population, particularly auriculoventricular block.

QTc interval evaluation in patients with right bundle branch block or bifascicular blocks

BACKGROUND

The right bundle branch block (RBBB) and the bifascicular blocks affect QRS duration in the right precordial leads, which are usually used for QT interval determination. Up to now, there is no clear recommendation how to determine QT interval in patients with RBBB or bifascicular block.

HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of a simple formula for RBBB and bifascicular block correction, thereby making it easier to determine the QTc interval.

METHODS

In patients with intrinsic QRS duration <120 ms, artificial RBBB with either left posterior (LPFB) or left anterior fascicular block (LAFB), created by left ventricular pacing maneuvers, were corrected using the Bogossian formula (QTm) and afterward were heart rate corrected (QTmc). Heart rate correction was performed using different heart rate formulas in comparison to each other. The QTmc intervals were compared in each patient with the QTc interval during intrinsic rhythm.

RESULTS

A total of scheduled 71 patients were included in this prospective multicenter observational comparative study. Compared to intrinsic QTc interval, the mean ΔQTmc interval by combination of the Bogossian and the Hodge formulas was -3 ± 24 ms in RBBB + LPFB (P = .44) and -6 ± 25 ms in RBBB + LAFB (P = .15). The Bogossian formula showed a significant deviation from the actual QTc interval with both the Bazett and the Fridericia formulas.

CONCLUSION

In combination with the Hodge formula, the Boggosian formula delivered the best results in comparing the true QTc interval in narrow QRS with the QTmc interval in the presence of a bifascicular block.