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: [Electrophysiological analysis of atrioventricular and intraventricular conduction in bi- and tri-fascicular blocks].
    Author: Ducceschi V, Sarubbi B, Mayer MS, De Divitiis M, Briglia N, Scialdone A, Santangelo L, Iacono A.
    Journal: Minerva Cardioangiol; 1997 Mar; 45(3):87-93. PubMed ID: 9213825.
    Abstract:
    We have evaluated, at baseline and during incremental atrial pacing (AP), intracardiac conduction features of 53 patients with electrocardiographic diagnosis of bifascicular or trifascicular block, free from any pharmacological treatment potentially able to affect atrioventricular (AV) conduction system properties. The patients have been subdivided in the following groups: group A (13 patients), with LBBB and a PQ interval > or = 200 msec; group B (14 patients), with RBBB, LAH with a PQ interval > or = 200 msec; group C (8 patients), with LBBB and a PQ < 200 msec; group D (15 patients), with RBBB, LAH and a PQ < 200 msec; group E (3 patients), with RBBB, LPH and a PQ < 200 msec. In group A, 31% presented a long AH interval (> 140 msec), while 85% showed an increased infra-his conduction time (HV > 55 msec). During AP, only 38.5% maintained a 1:1 AV conduction ratio up to 140 bpm, while 30.8% developed an infra-his Mobitz 2 2nd degree AV block. 15.4% an infrahis 2:1 2nd degree AV block, 15.4% an AV nodal Mobitz 2 2nd degree AV block. In group B, 64% and 29% exhibited respectively an AV nodal and an infrahis conduction delay. During AP, 57.1% maintained a 1:1 AV conduction ratio up to 140 bpm, 14.3% developed an AV nodal Mobitz 1 2nd degree AV block, 14.3% an infrahis Mobitz 1 2nd degree AV block, 7.1% an AV nodal 2:1 2nd degree AV block, 7.1% an infrahis Mobitz 2 2nd degree AV block. In group C, no patient manifested a prolonged AH interval, while 50% exhibited a HV > 55 msec. 62.5% maintained a 1:1 AV conduction ratio up to 140 bpm, 25% developed an AV nodal Mobitz 1 2nd degree AV block and 12.5% an infrahis 2:1 2nd degree AV block. In group D, no patient showed an increased AH interval and only 13% presented a HV interval exceeding 55 msec. During AP, 86.7% maintained a 1:1 AV conduction ratio up to 140 bpm, 6.6% developed an AV nodal Mobitz 1 2nd degree AV block, 6.6% an infrahis 2:1 2nd degree AV block. In group E, no patient showed a prolonged AH interval, while 2/3 (66.6%) exhibited an infrahis conduction delay. During AP, 100% developed an infrahis 2:1 2nd degree AV block. Considering all patients with LBBB (groups A+C) and with RBBB+LAH (groups B+D), no differences were found in terms of PQ, PA and AH intervals, even though, concerning patients with a long PQ (group A vs group B), AH interval resulted significantly longer in patients with RBBB+LAH (121.85 +/- 36.4 msec vs 163.29 +/- 55.96 msec, p = 0.031). Infrahis conduction, independently from the measurement adopted (HVI interval: from the beginning of the His to the onset of the ventricular electrogram recorded at the His region; HV2 interval: from the beginning of the His to the onset of the surface QRS), resulted more compromised in patients with LBBB than in patients with RBBB+LAH (HVI: 75.24 +/- 40.23 msec vs 50.79 +/- 25.16 msec, p = 0.011; HV2: 77.24 +/- 38.12 msec vs 53.92 +/- 29.3 msec, p = 0.015). Such a difference became even more significant when comparing the percentage of patients with a prolonged HV interval (average value > 55 msec) in the above mentioned groups: 71.4% in case of LBBB, 20.7% in case of RBBB+LAH (p < 0.001). Regarding intraventricular conduction (IV), no statistically significant differences were found. In patients with RBBB+LAH, IV was not related to infrahis conduction time and PQ interval appeared more related to AH (r = 0.838, p < 0.001) than to HV (PQ-HV1: r = 0.381, p = 0.041, PQ-HV2: r = 0.474, p = 0.009). Conversely, in patients with LBBB infrahis and IV conduction appeared linearly related (HVI-V: r = 0.416, p = 0.06; HV2-V: r = 0.445, p = 0.043). As for PQ interval, it resulted more closely related to infrahis conduction (PQ-HVI: r = 0.626, p = 0.002; PQ-HV2: r = 0.674, p < 0.001), than to AH (r = 0.533, p = 0.013). In conclusion, infrahis conduction resulted more impaired in patients with LBBB. In this group, differently from patients with RBBB+LAH, infrahis conduction seems to affect the degree of IV conduction delay. (ABST
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]