Journal
PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 5, Pages 590-595Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02649.x
Keywords
cardiac resynchronization therapy; electrocardiogram morphology; left bundle branch block; right bundle branch block; nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay
Funding
- Boston Scientific
- Medtronic
- St. Jude Medical
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Methods: We assessed 542 consecutive patients presenting for the new implantation of a CRT device. Patients were placed into one of three groups based on the preimplantation electrocardiogram morphology: LBBB, RBBB, or IVCD. Patients with a narrow QRS or paced ventricular rhythm were excluded. The primary endpoint was long-term survival. Secondary endpoints were changes in EF, left ventricular end-diastolic and systolic diameter, mitral regurgitation, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. Results: Three hundred and thirty-five patients met inclusion criteria of which 204 had LBBB, 38 RBBB, and 93 IVCD. There were 32 deaths in the LBBB group, 10 in the RBBB, and 27 in the IVCD group over a mean follow up of 3.4 +/- 1.2 years. In multivariate analysis, no mortality difference amongst the three groups was noted. Patients with LBBB had greater improvements in most echocardiographic endpoints and NYHA functional class than those with IVCD and RBBB. Conclusion: There is no difference in 3-year survival in patients undergoing CRT based on baseline native QRS morphology. Patients with RBBB and IVCD derive less reverse cardiac remodeling and symptomatic benefit from CRT compared with those with a native LBBB. (PACE 2010; 590-595).
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available