Defining left bundle branch block according to the new 2021 European Society of Cardiology criteria

Left bundle branch block cardiomyopathy (LBBB-CMP): from the not-so-benign finding of idiopathic LBBB to LBBB-CMP diagnosis and treatment

Introduction Idiopathic left bundle branch block (iLBBB) is an uncommon finding. Its benignity has been increasingly questioned, though its natural history remains poorly clarified. Similarly, LBBB-cardiomyopathy (LBBB-CM) has been also increasingly recognized as a distinct entity, where electromechanical dyssynchrony seems to play a central role in left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) development. Still, it remains a scarcely studied topic. There is an urgent need for investigation and evidence reinforcement in these areas.

OBJECTIVES

two main objectives: (1) to explore the natural history of "asymptomatic" iLBBB carriers; (2) to characterize the outcomes and therapeutic approach used in a "real-world" cohort of possible LBBB-CMP patients (pts).

METHODS

tertiary care centre retrospective study of pts with iLBBB and possible LBBB-CMP, screened from a large hospital electrocardiographic database from 2011 to 2017 (LBBB = 347). To assign the 1st objective, only pts with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50% and available follow-up (FU) data were included (n = 152). Regarding the 2nd objective, possible LBBB-CMP pts were selected and defined as iLBBB pts with LVD (LVEF < 50%) and no secondary causes for LVD (n = 53). Data were based on pts' careful review of medical records.

RESULTS

focusing our 1st objective, 152 iLBBB carriers were identified. Median FU time were 8 years, and 61% were female. During FU, approximately 25% developed LVD, 20% needed ≥ 1 cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization, and 15% needed a cardiac device implantation. The majority (2/3) of pts with LVD on FU (n = 35) had no secondary causes for LVD, being classified as possible LBBB-CMP pts. Time-to-LVD analysis showed no differences between pts with a known cause for LVD vs LBBB-CMP pts (Log-rank = 0.713). Concerning the 2nd objective, 53 possible LBBB-CMP pts were identified. Median FU time were 10 years, and 51% were female. During the FU, 77% presented heart failure (HF) symptoms, and 42% needed ≥ 1 CV hospitalization, mainly due to HF. Half presented severe LVD at some point in time, and 55% needed a cardiac device, most of them a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device. Comparing CRT with non-CRT pts, no differences were found in terms of medical therapy, but better outcomes were observed in CRT group: LVEF improvement was higher (median LVEF improvement of 11% in non-CRT vs 27% in CRT; p < 0.001), and fully recovery from LVD was more frequent (50% of CRT vs 14% non-CRT; p = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

our data strengthen current evidence on natural history of iLBBB, showing significant CV morbidity associated with the presence of iLBBB, and reinforces the need for a serial and proper FU of these carriers. Our data on "real-world" possible LBBB-CMP pts shows high rates of CV events, namely HF-related events, and supports the growing evidence pointing out CRT as this subgroup of pts' cornerstone of treatment. In conclusion, our work sheds additional light on these largely unknown topics and underlines the urgent need for larger and prospective studies addressing the identification of LVD development predictors in iLBBB carriers, as well as the establishment of diagnostic criteria and therapeutic approach for LBBB-CMP.

Left bundle branch block-induced dilated cardiomyopathy: Definitions, pathophysiology, and therapy

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is a frequent finding in patients with heart failure (HF), particularly in those with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). LBBB has been commonly described as a consequence of DCM development. However, a total recovery of left ventricular (LV) function after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), observed in patients with LBBB and DCM, has led to increasing acknowledgement of LBBB-induced dilated cardiomyopathy (LBBB-iDCM) as a specific pathological entity. Its recognition has important clinical implications, as LBBB-iDCM patients may benefit from an early CRT strategy rather than medical HF therapy only. At present, there are no definitive diagnostic criteria enabling the universal identification of LBBB-iDCM, and no defined therapeutic approach in this subgroup of patients. This review compiles the main findings about LBBB-iDCM pathophysiology and the current proposed diagnostic criteria and therapeutic approach.

A Revised Definition of Left Bundle Branch Block Using Time to Notch in Lead I

Importance

Current left bundle branch block (LBBB) criteria are based on animal experiments or mathematical models of cardiac tissue conduction and may misclassify patients. Improved criteria would impact referral decisions and device type for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Objective

To develop a simple new criterion for LBBB based on electrophysiological studies of human patients, and then to validate this criterion in an independent population.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this diagnostic study, the derivation cohort was from a single-center, prospective study of patients undergoing electrophysiological study from March 2016 through November 2019. The validation cohort was assembled by retrospectively reviewing medical records for patients from the same center who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) from October 2015 through May 2022.

Exposures

Patients were classified as having LBBB or intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD) as assessed by intracardiac recording.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Sensitivity and specificity of the electrocardiography (ECG) criteria assessed in patients with LBBB or IVCD.

Results

A total of 75 patients (median [IQR] age, 63 [53-70.5] years; 21 [28.0%] female) with baseline LBBB on 12-lead ECG underwent intracardiac recording of the left ventricular septum: 48 demonstrated complete conduction block (CCB) and 27 demonstrated intact Purkinje activation (IPA). Analysis of surface ECGs revealed that late notches in the QRS complexes of lateral leads were associated with CCB (40 of 48 patients [83.3%] with CCB vs 13 of 27 patients [48.1%] with IPA had a notch or slur in lead I; P = .003). Receiver operating characteristic curves for all septal and lateral leads were constructed, and lead I displayed the best performance with a time to notch longer than 75 milliseconds. Used in conjunction with the criteria for LBBB from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society, this criterion had a sensitivity of 71% (95% CI, 56%-83%) and specificity of 74% (95% CI, 54%-89%) in the derivation population, contrasting with a sensitivity of 96% (95% CI, 86%-99%) and specificity of 33% (95% CI, 17%-54%) for the Strauss criteria. In an independent validation cohort of 46 patients (median [IQR] age, 78.5 [70-84] years; 21 [45.7%] female) undergoing TAVR with interval development of new LBBB, the time-to-notch criterion demonstrated a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI, 74%-95%). In the subset of 10 patients with preprocedural IVCD, the criterion correctly distinguished IVCD from LBBB in all cases. Application of the Strauss criteria performed similarly in the validation cohort.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings suggest that time to notch longer than 75 milliseconds in lead I is a simple ECG criterion that, when used in conjunction with standard LBBB criteria, may improve specificity for identifying patients with LBBB from conduction block. This may help inform patient selection for cardiac resynchronization or conduction system pacing.

Electrocardiographic predictors of echocardiographic response in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Update of an old story

BACKGROUND

A better selection of patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) might increase the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The aim of the study was to investigate the association between the Strauss criteria, absence of S wave in V₅-V_6, the Selvester score and response to CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The retrospective analysis included all consecutive patients having undergone implantation of biventricular defibrillators in primary prevention between 2018 and 2020. The final analysis included 236 patients (mean age 69.7 ± 9.9; 77.5% of males). The Strauss criteria were significantly associated with CRT response (p < 0.01) with a sensitivity of 71.3% and specificity of 64.1%. The Strauss criteria along with the absence of S wave in V₅ and V₆ showed a sensitivity of 56.7%, a specificity of 82.6% and a positive predictive value of 90.5%. The Selvester score was significantly and inversely associated with CRT response (OR 0.818, 95% CI 0.75-0.89; p < 0.001). The multivariable model showed that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and QRS duration (≥140 ms in males and ≥ 130 ms in females) were independently associated with CRT response (respectively OR 0.92, CI 95% 0.86-0.98, p = 0.01 and OR 3.70, CI 95% 1.12-12.21, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Strauss criteria, especially in association with absence of S wave in V₅ and V₆, were able to increase specificity and positive predictive value for predicting CRT response. The Selvester score was inversely associated with CRT response. Finally, LVEF and QRS duration were independently associated with echocardiographic response to CRT.