Cardiac resynchronization therapy response in heart failure patients with different subtypes of true left bundle branch block

  • Javier García-Seara
  • Diego Iglesias Alvarez
  • Belen Alvarez Alvarez
  • Francisco Gude Sampedro
  • Jose L. Martínez Sande
  • Moisés Rodríguez-Mañero
  • Bahij Kreidieh
  • Xesus Alberte Fernández-López
  • Laila González Melchor
  • José Ramón González Juanatey
Article
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) configuration has been described as a predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We investigated whether different subtypes of true LBBB configuration could help select patients with better response and clinical outcome.

Methods

This retrospective study included 198 consecutive LBBB patients implanted with a CRT. True LBBB was defined using the Strauss and the Predict study criteria. Echocardiographic response was evaluated by the reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and the increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Clinical response was defined as an improvement in one category of the NYHA functional class.

Results

Patients with true LBBB had a greater improvement in both LVESV reduction (median = − 27.6%, interquartile range = [− 4.9, − 50.1]) and LVEF increase (median 10.8 ± 10) than those with non-true LBBB (− 19.7%, [16.7, − 48.0]) p = 0.04 and 5.1 ± 10, p = 0.03, respectively. No differences were exhibited between true LBBB Strauss group (− 26.7%, [− 11.0, − 46.9]) and true LBBB Predict group (− 26.6%, [− 15.9, − 39.4]). There were no statistically significant differences in the percentage of patients with clinical response, assessed by NYHA improvement, among all groups. In the Cox model for death, age, ischemic etiology, and ΔLVESV were independent predictors of mortality. True LBBB (Strauss + Predict) patients had a trend towards lower mortality than non-true LBBB [HR = 0.55, 95% CI = (0.22–1.15)], p = 0.08. In the Cox model for HF hospitalization, age, sex male, prior LVEF, and ΔLVESV were independent predictors. True LBBB (Strauss + Predict) patients had a significantly lower risk of developing HF hospitalization than those with non-true LBBB [0.45 (0.21–0.90)], p = 0.029.

Conclusions

Patients with true LBBB, either Strauss or Predict criteria, had greater echocardiographic response and lower incidence of HF hospitalization than non-true LBBB when implanted with CRT.

Keywords

Left bundle branch block Cardiac resynchronization therapy Heart failure 

Notes

Author contribution

J.G.S made primary contributions to the study conception and design, analysis, interpretation of results, and writing of the manuscript. B.A.A and D.I.A contributed to data collection and interpretation of results. F.G.S. contributed to design, statistical analysis and writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed to interpretation of results; all revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content; and all approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no relationships that could be construed as a conflict of interest for this publication. No funding was received for this research.

Ethical approval in research involving human participants

The study protocol was in accordance with the ethical standards of the regional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from every patient. The study protocol was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee in Galicia, Spain.

References

  1. 1.
    Cleland JGF, Calvert MJ, Verboven Y, Freemantle N. Effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on long-term quality of life: an analysis from the Cardiac Resynchronization-Heart Failure (CARE-HF) study. Am Heart J. 2009;157:457–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, Freemantle N, Gras D, Kappenberger L, et al. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1539–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tang AS, Wells GA, Talajic M, Arnold MO, Sheldon R, Connolly S, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild-to-moderate heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2385–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zareba W, Klein H, Cygankiewicz I, Hall WJ, McNitt S, Brown M, et al. Effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy by QRS morphology in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT). Circulation. 2011;123:1061–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strauss DG, Selvester RH, Wagner GS. Defining left bundle branch block in the era of cardiac resynchronization therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:927–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Auricchio A, Fantoni C, Regoli F, Carbucicchio C, Goette A, Geller C, et al. Characterization of left ventricular activation in patients with heart failure and left bundle-branch block. Circulation. 2004;109:1133–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perrin MJ, Green MS, Redpath CJ, Nery P, Keren A, Beanlands R, et al. Greater response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with true complete left bundle block: a PREDICT substudy. Europace. 2012;14:690–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tian Y, Zhang P, Li X, Gao Y, Zhu T, Wang L, et al. True complete left bundle branch block morphology strongly predicts good response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Europace. 2013;15:1499–506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Surawicz B, Childers R, Deal BJ, Gettes LS, Bailey JJ, Gorgels A, et al. AHA/ACCF/HRS recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: part III: intraventricular conduction disturbances: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society. Endorsed by the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:976–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yu C-M, Bleeker GB, Fung JW-H, Schalij MJ, Zhang Q, van der Wall EE, et al. Left ventricular reverse remodeling but not clinical improvement predicts long-term survival after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Circulation. 2005;112:1580–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ponikowski P, Voors A, Anker S, Bueno H, Cleland J, Coats A, et al. ESC for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2129–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cleland JG, Abraham WT, Linde C, Gold MR, Young JB, Daubert C, et al. An individual patient meta-analysis of five randomized trials assessing the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on morbidity and mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:3547–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bilchick KC, Kamath S, DiMarco JP, Stukenborg GJ. Bundle-branch block morphology and other predictors of outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy in Medicare patients. Circulation. 2010;122:2022–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sipahi I, Chou JC, Hyden M, Rowland DY, Simon DI, Fang JC. Effect of QRS morphology on clinical event reduction with cardiac resynchronization therapy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am Heart J. 2012;163:260–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zusterzeel R, Curtis J, Canos D, Sanders W, Selzman KA, Pina IL, et al. Sex-specific mortality risk by QRS morphology and duration in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the NCDR®. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:887–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Woods B, Hawkins N, Mealing S, Sutton A, Abraham WT, Beshai JF, et al. Individual patient data network meta-analysis of mortality effects of implantable cardiac devices. Heart. 2015;101:1800–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Padanilam BJ, Morris KE, Olson JA, Rippy JS, Walsh MN, Subramanian N, et al. The surface electrocardiogram predicts risk of heart block during right heart catheterization in patients with preexisting left bundle branch block: implications for the definition of complete left bundle branch block. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010;21:781–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zusterzeel R, Selzman KA, Sanders WE, Caños DA, O'Callaghan KM, Carpenter JL, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in women: US Food and Drug Administration meta-analysis of patient-level data. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1340–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mascioli G, Padeletti L, Sassone B, Zecchin M, Lucca E, Sacchi S, et al. Electrocardiographic criteria of true left bundle branch block: a simple sign to predict a better clinical and instrumental response to CRT. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2012;35:927–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bertaglia E, Migliore F, Baritussio A, De Simone A, Reggiani A, Pecora D, et al. Stricter criteria for left bundle branch block diagnosis do not improve response to CRT. Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;40:850–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kronborg M, Nielsen J, Mortensen P. Electrocardiographic patterns and long-term clinical outcome in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Europace. 2010;12:216–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dupont M, Rickard J, Baranowski B, Varma N, Dresing T, Gabi A, et al. Differential response to cardiac resynchronization therapy and clinical outcomes according to QRS morphology and QRS duration. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:592–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier García-Seara
    • 1
  • Diego Iglesias Alvarez
    • 2
  • Belen Alvarez Alvarez
    • 2
  • Francisco Gude Sampedro
    • 3
  • Jose L. Martínez Sande
    • 1
  • Moisés Rodríguez-Mañero
    • 1
  • Bahij Kreidieh
    • 4
  • Xesus Alberte Fernández-López
    • 1
  • Laila González Melchor
    • 1
  • José Ramón González Juanatey
    • 2
  1. 1.Cardiology Department, Arrhythmia UnitClinical University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, CIBER CV SpainSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  2. 2.Cardiology DepartmentClinical University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, CIBER CV SpainSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  3. 3.Epidemiology DepartmentClinical University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, CIBER CV SpainSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  4. 4.Cardiac ElectrophysiologyHouston Methodist HospitalHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations