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)

MRI Investigation of the Differential Impact of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction After Myocardial Infarction in Elderly vs. Nonelderly Patients to Predict Readmission for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), especially elderly individuals, have an increased risk of readmission for acute heart failure (AHF). PURPOSE: To study the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by MRI to predict AHF in elderly (>70 years) and nonelderly patients after STEMI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Multicenter registry of 759 reperfused STEMI patients (23.3% elderly). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5-T. Balanced steady-state free precession (cine imaging) and segmented inversion recovery steady-state free precession (late gadolinium enhancement) sequences. ASSESSMENT: One-week MRI-derived LVEF (%) was quantified. Sequential MRI data were recorded in 579 patients. Patients were categorized according to their MRI-derived LVEF as preserved (p-LVEF, ≥50%), mildly reduced (mr-LVEF, 41%-49%), or reduced (r-LVEF, ≤40%). Median follow-up was 5 [2.33-7.54] years. STATISTICAL TESTS: Univariable (Student's t, Mann-Whitney U, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests) and multivariable (Cox proportional hazard regression) comparisons and continuous-time multistate Markov model to analyze transitions between LVEF categories and to AHF. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Over the follow-up period, 79 (10.4%) patients presented AHF. MRI-LVEF was the most robust predictor in nonelderly (HR 0.94 [0.91-0.98]) and elderly patients (HR 0.94 [0.91-0.97]). Elderly patients had an increased AHF risk across the LVEF spectrum. An excess of risk (compared to p-LVEF) was noted in patients with r-LVEF both in nonelderly (HR 11.25 [5.67-22.32]) and elderly patients (HR 7.55 [3.29-17.34]). However, the mr-LVEF category was associated with increased AHF risk only in elderly patients (HR 3.66 [1.54-8.68]). Less transitions to higher LVEF states (n = 19, 30.2% vs. n = 98, 53%) and more transitions to AHF state (n = 34, 53.9% vs. n = 45, 24.3%) were observed in elderly than nonelderly patients. DATA CONCLUSION: MRI-derived p-LVEF confers a favorable prognosis and r-LVEF identifies individuals at the highest risk of AHF in both elderly and nonelderly patients. Nevertheless, an excess of risk was also found in the mr-LVEF category in the elderly group. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

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.