Low lead one ratio predicts clinical outcomes in left bundle branch block.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the association between a novel electrocardiographic (ECG) marker of late, rightward electrocardiographic forces (termed the lead one ratio [LOR]), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), myocardial scar, and clinical outcomes in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). METHODS AND RESULTS: LOR was calculated in patients with LBBB from a derivation cohort (n = 240) and receiver operator characteristic curves identified optimal threshold values for predicting myocardial scar and LVEF less than 35%. An independent validation cohort of patients with LBBB (n = 196) was used to test the association of LOR with the myocardial scar, LVEF, and the likelihood of death, heart transplant or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The optimal thresholds in the derivation cohort were LOR less than 13.7 for identification of scar (sensitivity 55%, specificity 80%), and LOR less than 12.1 for LVEF less than 35% (sensitivity 49%, specificity 80%). In the validation cohort, LOR less than 13.7 was not associated with scar size or presence (P > 0.05 for both). LOR less than 12.1 was associated with lower LVEF (30 [20-40] versus 40 [25-55]%; P = 0.002) and predicted LVEF less than 35% in univariable (odds ratio [OR], 2.2 [1.2-4.1]; P = 0.01) and multivariable analysis (OR, 2.2 [1.2-4.3]; P = 0.02). LOR less than 12.1 was associated with scar presence when patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy were excluded (OR = 7.2 [1.5-33.2]; P = 0.002). LOR less than 12.1 had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.53 ([1.05-2.21]; P = 0.03) for death, transplant or LVAD implantation. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, ECG LOR less than 12.1 predicts reduced-LV systolic function and poorer prognosis in patients with LBBB.

The ability of the electrocardiogram in left bundle branch block to detect myocardial scar determined by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

AIMS: We aimed to improve the electrocardiographic 2009 left bundle branch block (LBBB) Selvester QRS score (2009 LBSS) for scar assessment. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 325 LBBB patients with available ECG and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with late gadolinium enhancement from four centers (142 [44%] with CMR scar). Forty-four semi-automatically measured ECG variables pre-selected based on the 2009 LBSS yielded one multivariable model for scar detection and another for scar quantification. RESULTS: The 2009 LBSS achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.54-0.66) for scar detection, and R2 = 0.04, p < 0.001, for scar quantification. Multivariable modeling improved scar detection to AUC 0.72 (0.66-0.77) and scar quantification to R2 = 0.21, p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The 2009 LBSS detects and quantifies myocardial scar with poor accuracy. Improved models with extensive comparison of ECG and CMR had modest performance, indicating limited room for improvement of the 2009 LBSS.

Ejection fraction in left bundle branch block is disproportionately reduced in relation to amount of myocardial scar.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and LV myocardial scar can identify potentially reversible causes of LV dysfunction. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) alters the electrical and mechanical activation of the LV. We hypothesized that the relationship between LVEF and scar extent is different in LBBB compared to controls. METHODS: We compared the relationship between LVEF and scar burden between patients with LBBB and scar (n = 83), and patients with chronic ischemic heart disease and scar but no electrocardiographic conduction abnormality (controls, n = 90), who had undergone cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging at one of three centers. LVEF (%) was measured in CMR cine images. Scar burden was quantified by CMR late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and expressed as % of LV mass (%LVM). Maximum possible LVEF (LVEFmax) was defined as the function describing the hypotenuse in the LVEF versus myocardial scar extent scatter plot. Dysfunction index was defined as LVEFmax derived from the control cohort minus the measured LVEF. RESULTS: Compared to controls with scar, LBBB with scar had a lower LVEF (median [interquartile range] 27 [19-38] vs 36 [25-50] %, p < 0.001), smaller scar (4 [1-9] vs 11 [6-20] %LVM, p < 0.001), and greater dysfunction index (39 [30-52] vs 21 [12-35] % points, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among LBBB patients referred for CMR, LVEF is disproportionately reduced in relation to the amount of scar. Dyssynchrony in LBBB may thus impair compensation for loss of contractile myocardium.