Cargando…

Why is the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization better in LBBB patients?

AIMS: The improved clinical response in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) over LBBB‐free patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT‐D) is commonly attributed to an LBBB abnormality. We aimed to find an alternative explanation. METHODS AND RESULTS: W...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kvasnička, Jiří, Havlíček, Aleš, Bělohlávek, Jan, Večeřa, Jan, Čermáková, Eva
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7754895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32945621
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12893
_version_ 1783626272438484992
author Kvasnička, Jiří
Havlíček, Aleš
Bělohlávek, Jan
Večeřa, Jan
Čermáková, Eva
author_facet Kvasnička, Jiří
Havlíček, Aleš
Bělohlávek, Jan
Večeřa, Jan
Čermáková, Eva
author_sort Kvasnička, Jiří
collection PubMed
description AIMS: The improved clinical response in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) over LBBB‐free patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT‐D) is commonly attributed to an LBBB abnormality. We aimed to find an alternative explanation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed an immediate effect of selecting the LBBB group of patients in a cohort of 63 non‐ischaemic cardiomyopathy (non‐ICM) and 83 ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) patients treated with CRT‐D; 75% of non‐ICM and 51% of ICM patients had an LBBB abnormality on the electrocardiogram, with a significant difference (P = 0.0032 by χ (2)). As a result of this difference, the proportion of non‐ICM patients increased from 43% in the primary cohort to 53% in LBBB selection and decreased to 28% in non‐LBBB group. By nonparametric survival analysis, the hazard ratio in non‐ICM patients in the LBBB selection decreased from 0.48 (P = 0.0488) to 0.36 (P = 0.0251) and increased in the non‐LBBB group to 0.75 (P = 0.6496). Any comparison of LBBB and non‐LBBB groups must compare sets with a significantly altered proportion of patients of different aetiologies. Most publications on LBBB patients are erroneous because they compare LBBB with non‐LBBB groups, not taking into account that the groups have been substantially changed by the selection process. CONCLUSIONS: The declared outcome of the LBBB groups reflects inevitably the survival outcome of their non‐ICM patients and not the intended outcome of patients with LBBB. CRT‐D in patients with different aetiologies of cardiomyopathy calls for separate evaluation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7754895
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77548952020-12-23 Why is the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization better in LBBB patients? Kvasnička, Jiří Havlíček, Aleš Bělohlávek, Jan Večeřa, Jan Čermáková, Eva ESC Heart Fail Original Research Articles AIMS: The improved clinical response in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) over LBBB‐free patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT‐D) is commonly attributed to an LBBB abnormality. We aimed to find an alternative explanation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed an immediate effect of selecting the LBBB group of patients in a cohort of 63 non‐ischaemic cardiomyopathy (non‐ICM) and 83 ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) patients treated with CRT‐D; 75% of non‐ICM and 51% of ICM patients had an LBBB abnormality on the electrocardiogram, with a significant difference (P = 0.0032 by χ (2)). As a result of this difference, the proportion of non‐ICM patients increased from 43% in the primary cohort to 53% in LBBB selection and decreased to 28% in non‐LBBB group. By nonparametric survival analysis, the hazard ratio in non‐ICM patients in the LBBB selection decreased from 0.48 (P = 0.0488) to 0.36 (P = 0.0251) and increased in the non‐LBBB group to 0.75 (P = 0.6496). Any comparison of LBBB and non‐LBBB groups must compare sets with a significantly altered proportion of patients of different aetiologies. Most publications on LBBB patients are erroneous because they compare LBBB with non‐LBBB groups, not taking into account that the groups have been substantially changed by the selection process. CONCLUSIONS: The declared outcome of the LBBB groups reflects inevitably the survival outcome of their non‐ICM patients and not the intended outcome of patients with LBBB. CRT‐D in patients with different aetiologies of cardiomyopathy calls for separate evaluation. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-09-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7754895/ /pubmed/32945621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12893 Text en © 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Research Articles
Kvasnička, Jiří
Havlíček, Aleš
Bělohlávek, Jan
Večeřa, Jan
Čermáková, Eva
Why is the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization better in LBBB patients?
title Why is the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization better in LBBB patients?
title_full Why is the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization better in LBBB patients?
title_fullStr Why is the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization better in LBBB patients?
title_full_unstemmed Why is the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization better in LBBB patients?
title_short Why is the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization better in LBBB patients?
title_sort why is the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization better in lbbb patients?
topic Original Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7754895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32945621
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12893
work_keys_str_mv AT kvasnickajiri whyistheclinicalresponsetocardiacresynchronizationbetterinlbbbpatients
AT havlicekales whyistheclinicalresponsetocardiacresynchronizationbetterinlbbbpatients
AT belohlavekjan whyistheclinicalresponsetocardiacresynchronizationbetterinlbbbpatients
AT vecerajan whyistheclinicalresponsetocardiacresynchronizationbetterinlbbbpatients
AT cermakovaeva whyistheclinicalresponsetocardiacresynchronizationbetterinlbbbpatients