4.4 Article

Atrioventricular block in patients undergoing treatment with bradycardic drugs. Predictors of pacemaker requirement

Journal

REVISTA ESPANOLA DE CARDIOLOGIA
Volume 73, Issue 7, Pages 554-560

Publisher

EDICIONES DOYMA S A
DOI: 10.1016/j.recesp.2019.09.006

Keywords

Atrioventricular block; Bradycardic drugs; Antiarrhythmic drugs; Pacemaker; Syncope

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction and objectives: Atrioventricular block (AVB) in the presence of bradycardic drugs (BD) can be reversible, and pacemaker implantation is controversial. Our objective was to analyze the pacemaker implantation rate in the mid-term, after BD suspension, and to identify predictive factors. Methods: We performed a cohort study that included patients attending the emergency department with high-grade AVB in the context of BD. We studied the persistence of AVB after BD discontinuation, recurrence in patients with AVB resolution, and the predictive variables associated with pacemaker requirement at 3 years. Results: Of 127 patients included (age, 79 [71-83] years), BAV resolved in 60 (47.2%); among these patients, recurrence occurred during the 24-month median follow-up in 40 (66.6%). Pacemaker implantation was required in 107 patients (84.3%), despite BD discontinuation. On multivariable analysis, the variables associated with pacemaker need at 3 years were heart rate < 35 bpm (OR, 8.12; 95% CI, 1.82-36.17), symptoms other than syncope (OR, 4.09; 95%CI, 1.18-14.13), and wide QRS (OR, 5.65; 95% CI, 1.77-18.04). Concomitant antiarrhythmic treatment was associated with AVB resolution (OR, 0.12; 95%CI, 0.02-0.66). Conclusions: More than 80% of patients with AVB secondary to BD require pacemaker implantation despite drug discontinuation. Predictive variables were wide QRS, heart rate < 35 bpm, and clinical presentation other than syncope. (C) 2019 Sociedad Espanola de Cardiologia. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available