Riesgo arrítmico en episodios únicos o recurrentes de síncope inexplicado con bloqueo completo de rama / Arrhythmic risk in single or recurrent episodes of unexplained syncope with complete bundle branch block

Introducción y objetivos: Los pacientes con un episodio sincopal inexplicable único (ESU) y bloqueo completo de rama del haz de His (BcR) con frecuencia se tratan de manera más conservadora que aquellos con episodios recurrentes (ESR). El objetivo fue analizar si existen diferencias entre pacientes con ESU o ESR y BcR en cuanto al riesgo arrítmico, el rendimiento diagnóstico de las pruebas y los resultados clínicos. Métodos: Estudio de cohorte de pacientes consecutivos con seguimiento medio de 3 años. Fueron estudiados mediante un protocolo escalonado basado en un estudio electrofisiológico y seguimiento con un monitor cardiaco implantable (MCI). Resultados: De los 503 pacientes incluidos en el estudio, 238 (47,3%) referían un ESU. El riesgo de síncope arrítmico fue similar en ambos grupos (58,8% ESU frente a 57,0% ESR; p=0,68), también tras ajustar por variables de confusión (HR=1,06; IC95%, 0,81-1,38; p=0,674). No se encontraron diferencias significativas en cuanto a los resultados del estudio electrofisiológico y la rentabilidad diagnóstica del monitor cardiaco implantable. Un total de 141 (59,2%) pacientes con ESU y 154 (58,1%) con ESR requirieron el implante de un dispositivo cardiaco (p=0,797). Tras el tratamiento adecuado, 35 (7%) pacientes presentaron recurrencia del síncope. La tasa de recurrencia y la mortalidad también fueron similares. Conclusiones: Los pacientes con BcR y síncope tienen un alto riesgo de tener una etiología arrítmica, aunque solo hayan presentado un episodio aislado. Los pacientes con ESU y ESR tienen un riesgo arrítmico similar y presentan un pronóstico similar, por lo que no existe una justificación clínica para no tratarlos de la misma manera.(AU)

Introduction and objectives: Patients with a single syncopal episode (SSE) and complete bundle branch block (cBBB) are frequently managed more conservatively than patients with recurrent episodes (RSE). The objective of this study was to analyze if there are differences between patients with single or recurrent unexplained syncope and cBBB in arrhythmic risk, the diagnostic yield of tests, and clinical outcomes. Methods: Cohort study of consecutive patients with unexplained syncope and cBBB with a median follow-up time of 3 years. The patients were evaluated via a stepwise workup protocol based on electrophysiological study (EPS) and long-term follow-up with an implantable cardiac monitor. Results: Of the 503 patients included in the study, 238 (47.3%) had had only 1 syncopal episode. The risk of an arrhythmic syncope was similar in both groups (58.8% in SSE vs 57.0% in RSE; P=.68), also after adjustment for possible confounding variables (HR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.81-1.38; P=.674). No significant differences between the groups were found in the EPS results and implantable cardiac monitor diagnostic yield. A total of 141 (59.2%) patients with SSE and 154 (58.1%) patients with RSE required cardiac device implantation (P=.797). After appropriate treatment, 35 (7%) patients had recurrence of syncope. The recurrence rate and mortality were also similar in both groups. Conclusions: Patients with cBBB and unexplained syncope are at high risk of an arrhythmic etiology, even after the first syncopal episode. Patients with SSE and RSE have a similar arrhythmic risk and similar outcomes, and therefore there is no clinical justification for not managing them in the same manner.(AU)

Late Electrocardiographic Changes in Patients With New-Onset Left Bundle Branch Block Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

This study sought to determine, in patients with new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the incidence and factors associated with (i) LBBB recovery and (ii) permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) at 1-year follow-up. This was a multicenter study including 153 patients (mean age: 81 ± 5 years, 56% of women) with NOP-LBBB post-TAVI (balloon-expandable valve in 112 patients). Delta PR (ΔPR) and delta QRS (ΔQRS) were defined as the difference in PR and QRS length between baseline and hospital discharge ECG, and the relative ΔPR and ΔQRS as absolute ΔPR and ΔQRS divided by baseline PR and QRS length, respectively. The patients had a clinical visit and 12-lead ECG at 1-year follow-up. LBBB recovery was observed in 50 patients (33%), and 14 patients (9%) had advanced conduction disturbances requiring PPI during the follow-up period. No clinical or ECG variables were associated with LBBB recovery, including prosthesis type (self- or balloon-expandable valve, p = 0.563), QRS width at baseline/discharge or absolute/relative ΔQRS (p >0.10 for all). The presence of atrial fibrillation at baseline (0.026), a longer PR interval at discharge (0.009), and a longer absolute and relative ΔPR (p = 0.002 and p = 0.004, respectively) were associated with an increased risk of PPI at 1-year follow-up. In conclusion, NOP-LBBB post-TAVI resolved in one-third of patients at 1-year follow-up, but no clinical or ECG variables were associated with LBBB recovery. Conversely, a nonsinus rhythm at baseline and a longer ΔPR were associated with an increased risk of PPI within the year after TAVI.

Intra-atrial re-entrant tachycardia in congenital heart disease: types and relation of isthmus to atrial voltage.

Background: Intra-atrial re-entrant tachycardia (IART) is a frequent and severe complication in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). Cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI)-related IART is the most frequent mechanism. However, due to fibrosis and surgical scars, non-CTI-related IART is also frequent. Objective: The main objective of this study was to describe the types of IART and circuit locations and to define a cut-off value for unhealthy tissue in the atria. Methods and results: This observational study included all consecutive patients with CHD who underwent a first ablation procedure for IART from January 2009 to December 2015 (94 patients, 39.4% female, age: 36.55 ± 14.9 years, 40.4% with highly complex cardiac disease). During the study, 114 IARTs were ablated (1.21 ± 0.41 IARTs per patient). Cavotricuspid isthmus-related IART was the only arrhythmia in 51% (n = 48) of patients, non-CTI-related IART was the only mechanism in 27.7% (n = 26), and 21.3% of patients (n = 20) presented both types of IART. In cases of non-CTI-related IART, the most frequent location of IART isthmus was the lateral or posterolateral wall of the venous atria, and a voltage cut-off value for unhealthy tissue in the atria of 0.5 mV identified 95.4% of IART isthmus locations. Conclusion: In our population with a high proportion of complex CHD, CTI-related IART was the most frequent mechanism, although non-CTI-related IART was present in 49% of patients (alone or with concomitant CTI-related IART). A cut-off voltage of 0.5 mV could identify 95.4% of the substrates in non-CTI-related IART.