These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Is there a prognostic relevance of electrophysiological studies in bundle branch block patients?
    Author: Bogossian H, Frommeyer G, Göbbert K, Hasan F, Nguyen QS, Ninios I, Mijic D, Bandorski D, Hoeltgen R, Seyfarth M, Lemke B, Eckardt L, Zarse M.
    Journal: Clin Cardiol; 2017 Aug; 40(8):575-579. PubMed ID: 28294370.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]