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)

Arrhythmic risk in single or recurrent episodes of unexplained syncope with complete bundle branch block.

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.

Sex-Related Differences in Patients With Unexplained Syncope and Bundle Branch Block: Lower Risk of AV Block and Lesser Need for Cardiac Pacing in Women.

Objective: To analyze if there are sex-related differences in patients with unexplained syncope and bundle branch block (BBB). Background: Despite increasing awareness that sex is a major determinant of the incidence, etiology, and the outcomes of different arrhythmias, no studies have examined differences in presentation and outcomes between men and women with syncope and BBB. Methods: Cohort study of consecutive patients with unexplained syncope and BBB was included from January 2010 to January 2021 with a median follow-up time of 3.4 years [interquartile range (IQR) 1.7-6.0 years]. They were evaluated by a stepwise workup protocol based on electrophysiological study (EPS) and long-term follow-up with an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM). Results: Of the 443 patients included in the study, 165 (37.2%) were women. Compared with men, women had less diabetes (25.5 vs. 39.9%, p = 0.002) and less history of ischemic heart disease (IHD; 13.3 vs. 25.9%, p = 0.002). Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was more frequent in women (55.2 vs. 27.7%, p < 0.001) while right bundle branch block (RBBB) was more frequent in men (41.5 vs. 67.7%, p < 0.001). His to ventricle (HV) interval in the EPS was shorter in women (58 ms [IQR 52-71] vs. 60 ms [IQR 52-73], p = 0.035) and less women had an HV interval longer than 70 ms (28.5 vs. 38.1%, p = 0.039), however, EPS and ICM offered a similar diagnostic yield in both sexes (40.6 vs. 48.9% and 48.4% vs. 51.1%, respectively). Women had a lower risk of developing atrioventricular block (AVB) (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.44-95% CI 0.26-0.74, p = 0.002) and of requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.72-95% CI: 0.52-0.99, p = 0.046). The mortality rate was lower in women (4.5 per 100 person-years [95% CI 3.1-6.4 per 100 person-years] vs. 7.3 per 100 person-years [95% CI 5.9-9.1 per 100 person-years]). Conclusions: Compared to men, women with unexplained syncope and BBB have a lower risk of AVB and of requiring cardiac pacing. A stepwise diagnostic approach has a similar diagnostic yield in both sexes, and it seems appropriate to guide the treatment and avoid unnecessary pacemaker implantation, especially in women.

ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with acute coronary syndrome following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), those presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are at highest risk. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of STEMI after TAVR. METHODS: This was a multicenter study including 118 patients presenting with STEMI at a median of 255 days (interquartile range: 9 to 680 days) after TAVR. Procedural features of STEMI after TAVR managed with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were compared with all-comer STEMI: 439 non-TAVR patients who had primary PCI within the 2 weeks before and after each post-TAVR STEMI case in 5 participating centers from different countries. RESULTS: Median door-to-balloon time was higher in TAVR patients (40 min [interquartile range: 25 to 57 min] vs. 30 min [interquartile range: 25 to 35 min]; p = 0.003). Procedural time, fluoroscopy time, dose-area product, and contrast volume were also higher in TAVR patients (p < 0.01 for all). PCI failure occurred more frequently in patients with previous TAVR (16.5% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001), including 5 patients in whom the culprit lesion was not revascularized owing to coronary ostia cannulation failure. In-hospital and late (median of 7 months [interquartile range: 1 to 21 months]) mortality rates were 25.4% and 42.4%, respectively (20.6% and 38.2% in primary PCI patients), and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.42 to 6.43; p = 0.004), Killip class ≥2 (HR: 2.74; 95% CI: 1.37 to 5.49; p = 0.004), and PCI failure (HR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.42 to 7.31; p = 0.005) determined an increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: STEMI after TAVR was associated with very high in-hospital and mid-term mortality. Longer door-to-balloon times and a higher PCI failure rate were observed in TAVR patients, partially due to coronary access issues specific to the TAVR population, and this was associated with poorer outcomes.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Scarce data exist on coronary events following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and no study has determined the factors associated with poorer outcomes in this setting. This study sought to determine the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and prognostic factors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events following TAVR. METHODS: Multicenter cohort study including a total of 270 patients presenting an ACS after a median time of 12 (interquartile range, 5-17) months post-TAVR. Post-ACS death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and overall major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events were recorded. RESULTS: The ACS clinical presentation consisted of non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) type 2 (31.9%), non-STEMI type 1 (31.5%), unstable angina (28.5%), and STEMI (8.1%). An invasive strategy was used in 163 patients (60.4%), and a percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 97 patients (35.9%). Coronary access issues were observed in 2.5% and 2.1% of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures, respectively. The in-hospital mortality rate was 10.0%, and at a median follow-up of 17 (interquartile range, 5-32) months, the rates of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events were 43.0%, 4.1%, 15.2%, and 52.6%, respectively. By multivariable analysis, revascularization at ACS time was associated with a reduction of the risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.36-0.81] P=0.003), whereas STEMI increased the risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.05-4.03] P=0.036) and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.08-3.57] P=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: ACS events in TAVR recipients exhibited specific characteristics (ACS presentation, low use of invasive procedures, coronary access issues) and were associated with a poor prognosis, with a very high in-hospital and late death rate. STEMI and the lack of coronary revascularization determined an increased risk. These results should inform future studies to improve both the prevention and management of ACS post-TAVR.