Concordant versus discordant left bundle branch block in heart failure patients: novel clinical value of an old electrocardiographic diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 50 years left bundle branch block (LBBB) has been defined as homophasic (concordant: cLBBB) or heterophasic (discordant: dLBBB) when associated with a positive or negative T wave in leads I and V5-V6, respectively. LBBB is recognized as an adverse prognostic factor in heart failure (HF). The prevalence and clinical significance of cLBBB and dLBBB in HF patients are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 897 consecutive systolic HF patients (age 65 +/- 13 years, left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 34 +/- 10%) underwent clinical characterization, electrocardiographic evaluation for LBBB diagnosis and classification, and follow-up for cardiac events (median 37 months, range 1-84). LBBB was diagnosed in 232 patients (26%), cLBBB in 71 (31%), and dLBBB in 161 (69%). The dLBBB patients were older than those with cLBBB, and presented with lower LVEF, greater left ventricular telediastolic diameter and left ventricular mass index, higher level of brain natriuretic peptide, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, renin activity, and norepinephrine (all P < .05). At Kaplan-Meier analysis, LBBB (P = .003) and dLBBB (P = .036) were associated with a worse prognosis when the composite end point of sudden death and implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock was considered. CONCLUSIONS: In systolic HF, dLBBB is associated with a worse clinical, neurohormonal, and prognostic profile. LBBB classification could represent a useful tool in routine clinical evaluation.

Has mechanical dyssynchrony still a role in predicting cardiac resynchronization therapy response?

UNLABELLED: Current guidelines for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) include electrical but not mechanical dyssynchrony assessment. Our study aims to investigate the effects of isolated or combined mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony, according, respectively, to a standard deviation of tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) derived time to systolic peak ≥32.6 ms and to a QRS duration ≥120 ms, in predicting CRT reverse remodeling. METHOD: One hundred ninety-two CRT patients were studied. All patients underwent a complete standard and TDI echocardiography examination before and 6 months after CRT. According to baseline evaluation patients were divided into Group 1, patients with isolated electrical dyssynchrony (QRS ≥ 120 ms, TS-SD < 32.6), Group 2, patients with isolated mechanical dyssynchrony (QRS < 120 ms, TS-SD ≥ 32.6) and Group 3, patients with combined electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony (QRS ≥ 120 ms, TS-SD ≥ 32.6). Patients were considered CRT responders according to ≥15 left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction at follow-up (FU). RESULT: At FU, 86 (45%) patients were responders. The highest CRT response rate was observed in Group 3 (62/119, 52%, P < 0.001 vs. Group 1). No significant differences in response rate were observed between Group 1 (13/47, 27%) and Group 2 (11/26, 42%). In Group1, CRT did not induce any significant change in LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LVESV, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), myocardial performance index (MPI), while in Group 2, LVEF (P < 0.001) and MPI (P < 0.05) were improved. In Group 3, LVEDV, LVESV, LVEF, MPI were significantly improved (P < 0.0001 for all). CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate that the highest CRT response rate can be achieved by combining traditional QRS criterion and a currently used echocardiographic dyssynchrony parameter.

Echo/Doppler-derived time intervals are able to predict left ventricular reverse remodeling after cardiac resynchronization therapy.

AIM: We evaluated the predictive value of echo/Doppler derived indices, which reflect the duration of the isovolumic phases of the cardiac cycle, in identifying cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) responders. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 105 patients before and 6 months after CRT the following echo/Doppler parameters were evaluated: myocardial performance index (MPI) as the sum of isovolumic contraction time (IVCT) and isovolumic relaxation time (IVRT) divided by ejection time; total isovolumic time (t-IVT) as the sum of IVCT and IVRT divided by the RR interval; and standard deviation of the time to systolic peak velocity (Ts-SD) as asynchrony index. After 6 months, patients were defined responders according to 15% left ventricle (LV) end-systolic volume reduction or more. At baseline, responders (53.3%) had higher t-IVT and MPI than nonresponders (0.30 +/- 0.06 versus 0.22 +/- 0.05, P < 0.0001 and 1.01 +/- 0.27 versus 0.73 +/- 0.19, P < 0.0001, respectively). Receiving operating characteristic curve analysis showed that both t-IVT (80.3% sensitivity and 83.7% specificity, cut-off = 0.263) and MPI (78.6% sensitivity and 81.6% specificity, cut-off = 0.84) could predict CRT response. Baseline t-IVT correlated well to end-systolic volume reduction (r = -0.56, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: Echo/Doppler derived indices, describing physiologic abnormalities of the isovolumic contraction and relaxation phase, are able to predict CRT-induced reverse remodeling.