Nuevos predictores de evolución a bloqueo auriculoventricular en pacientes con bloqueo bifascicular

Management of Patients With Unexplained Syncope: Derivation and Validation of a Simplified 2-Step Diagnostic Approach

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to develop a structured 2-step approach, based on noninvasive diagnostic criteria, that led to an electrophysiology study in patients with unexplained syncope.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two independent cohorts were used: the derivation cohort with 665 patients based on electronic health record data to develop our 2-step diagnostic approach, and the validation cohort based on 160 prospectively screened patients, presenting with unexplained syncope episodes. Noninvasive electrocardiographic and imaging markers and an electrophysiology study-based invasive assessment were combined. A positive diagnostic approach according to our study's prespecified criteria resulted in a decision to proceed with a permanent pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The primary end point was the time until the event of recurrent syncope (syncope-free survival). Number needed to treat was calculated for patients with a positive diagnostic approach. The number of patients with unexplained syncope and borderline sinus bradycardia needed to treat was 5, and the number of patients with unexplained syncope and bundle branch block needed to treat was 3 over a mean follow-up of ≈4 years. After the structured 2-step approach, the primary outcome occurred in 14 of 82 (17.1%) with a pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and 19 of 57 (33%) with a negative approach, with a mean follow-up of ≈2.5 years (29.29±12.58 months, P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The low number needed to treat in the derivation cohort and the low percentage of syncope recurrence in the validation cohort supports the proposed 2-step electrophysiology-inclusive algorithm as a potentially low-cost, 1-day, structured tool for these patients.

Management of Patients With Unexplained Syncope and Bundle Branch Block: Predictive Factors of Recurrent Syncope

Syncope in patients with bundle branch block (BBB) is often due to advanced atrioventricular (AV) block. The objective of the present "real-world" study was to evaluate the optimal management in patients with unexplained syncope and BBB and to identify factors that predict the recurrence of syncope. This is a single-center observational prospective registry of 131 consecutive patients undergoing invasive electrophysiology study (EPS) for recurrent unexplained presyncope or syncope attacks and BBB. When the EPS-derived diagnosis was reached, a decision to proceed with a permanent pacemaker was offered to the patient. An implantable loop recorder was inserted in the rest of the population. A total of 131 consecutive patients with unexplained syncope and BBB (67.2% male; age 63.7 ± 16.5 years) underwent EPS during the study period. The distribution of conduction disturbance patterns was as follows: isolated left bundle branch block (LBBB): 23.7%; LBBB with first AV block: 8.4%; isolated right bundle branch block (RBBB): 10.7%; RBBB with first AV block: 8.4%; isolated left anterior/posterior fascicular block: 13%; left anterior/posterior fascicular block with first AV block: 5.3%; isolated bifascicular block: 16.8%; and bifascicular block with first AV block: 13.7%. In the multivariate analysis, the only predictors of recurrent syncope were bifascicular block (hazard ratio (HR): 4.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29, 13.41, P: 0.017) and HV interval ≥ 60 msec (HR: 3.58, 95% CI: 1.12, 11.46, P: 0.032). An EPS-based strategy identifies a subset of patients who will benefit from permanent pacing. HV interval ≥ 60 msec and the presence of a bifascicular block were strongly related to syncope recurrence.

Impact of bundle branch block morphology on outcomes of patients with syncope and bifascicular block: A SPRITELY (POST 3) substudy

BACKGROUND

Permanent pacing is often considered for patients with syncope and bifascicular block.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether QRS morphology or other electrocardiographic characteristics can identify patients who may benefit from permanent pacing.

METHODS

The Syncope: Pacing or Recording in the Later Years (SPRITELY) trial was a multicenter trial that randomized patients with bifascicular block and syncope (n = 115) to empiric pacemaker implantation vs implantable loop recorder (ILR) monitoring. In this SPRITELY subanalysis, baseline 12-lead electrocardiograms were evaluated for bundle branch block (BBB) morphology, QRS width, and PR and QT intervals and their impact on clinical outcomes was assessed.

RESULTS

There were 41 patients with left BBB (36%), 69 patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) and left anterior fascicular block (60%), and 5 patients with RBBB and left posterior fascicular block (4%). Pacemaker implant compared with ILR was associated with a significant reduction of major study-related events (MSREs) in both patients with left BBB (23.8% vs 78.9%; P = .001) and those with RBBB (27% vs 72.9%; P < .0001). Similarly, a reduction of MSREs was observed in both patients with trifascicular block (23% vs 84.6%; P < .0001) and those with bifascicular block (26.6% vs 68.9%; P = .002). In the group randomized to ILR monitoring, the type of BBB was not a predictor of recurrent syncope (P = .30), bradycardia requiring pacemaker (P = .15), or MSREs (P = .42). The presence of PR interval prolongation or QRS width in this group did not predict MSREs (P = .22 and P = .96, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In patients with syncope and bifascicular block, pacemaker implantation reduces adverse events as compared with ILR monitoring, irrespective of the type of BBB or the presence of PR interval prolongation.

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.

Presyncope in a Patient Status Post Pectus Excavatum Repair

Pectus excavatum (PEX) is an anterior chest wall deformity with sternal depression relative to the costal cartilages. We describe a patient status post remote PEX repair who presented with presyncope attributed to bifascicular block, partial right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) obstruction, and right coronary artery (RCA) ischemia. Key Clinical Message: The clinician should be cognizant of the hemodynamic impact and electrocardiographic changes in a symptomatic patient status post pectus excavatum repair.

Bradyarrhythmias and Physiologic Pacing in the ICU

Bradyarrhythmias represent a common pathology in the intensive care unit (ICU) with etiologies of varying severity. Treatment has often been focused on correcting underlying causes and may require pacing for urgent hemodynamic support. In recent years, there has been interest in physiologic pacing modalities which avoid the dyssynchrony from right ventricular (RV) only pacing. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) through biventricular pacing is a well-established device-based electrical therapy in patients with wide QRS and heart failure. Recently, it has been shown that biventricular pacing may also be pursued for hemodynamic rescue in the ICU setting. Efforts to re-engage the conduction system with His bundle pacing or further downstream have also emerged as alternative means to deliver resynchronization, with early applications in the ICU now being reported. The goal of the review is to examine bradyarrhythmia causes and management in the ICU as well as investigate new approaches in physiologic pacing and their potential roles in critically ill patients.

Feasibility of RA-LV pacing in patients with symptomatic left bundle branch block: a pilot study

Several studies have reported the adverse effects of right ventricular apical pacing. Permanent His bundle pacing is proved to be the most physiological. But it can be technically difficult sometimes. One recent large multicenter randomized trial showed that pacing from left ventricular apex or mid-lateral wall has the greatest potential to prevent pacing-induced reduction of cardiac pump function (by maintaining left ventricular mechanical synchrony) and, therefore, can be considered as physiological site. In our study, we have wanted to see the outcome of left ventricular pacing through coronary sinus branch with active fixation bipolar lead as a routine pacing technique in patients with symptomatic left bundle branch block. In our study we have recruited 27 patients for left ventricular pacing through coronary sinus branch (as done in cardiac resynchronization therapy) with active fixation bipolar lead and 33 patients for right ventricular apical pacing (control) and compared left ventricular pacing with right ventricular apical pacing in patients with history of syncope with left bundle branch block in baseline electrocardiography who presented with atrio-ventricular block or prolonged HV interval (≥ 70 ms) on electrophysiology study in term of procedure and fluoroscopy time and short-term lead performance and left ventricular function. The results of our study showed that left ventricular pacing through a tributary of coronary sinus is associated with shortened QRS duration (21.10 ± 3.92 ms) and better LV function (higher left ventricular ejection fraction 64.00 ± 3.03 vs. 59.73 ± 6.73 and lower left ventricular diastolic internal diameter 4.58 ± 0.32 vs. 5.23 ± 0.40 cm) in comparison to right ventricular apical pacing. However, the total procedure time and fluoroscopy time was significantly higher (73.75 ± 11.02 vs. 63.32 ± 6.06 min and 7.08 ± 1.48 vs. 5.02 ± 1.39 min, respectively) in left ventricular pacing group. The results of this study indicate that transvenous left ventricular epicardial pacing may be an option for physiological pacing in patients with symptomatic left bundle branch block.

Is there a prognostic relevance of electrophysiological studies in bundle branch block patients?

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.

[Advances in cardiac pacing]

This article contains a review of the current status of remote monitoring and follow-up involving cardiac pacing devices and of the latest developments in cardiac resynchronization therapy. In addition, the most important articles published in the last year are discussed.