4.4 Article

Predicting the Development of Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Patients With Left Bundle Branch Block

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 137, Issue -, Pages 39-44

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.09.034

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Boston Scientific
  2. Abbott Medical
  3. Medtronic
  4. NIH T32 training grant [5T32HL069749]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) increases the likelihood of developing reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) but predicting which patients with LBBB and normal LVEF will develop decreased LVEF remains challenging. Fifty patients with LBBB and normal LVEF were retrospectively identified. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic variables were compared between patients who developed a decreased LVEF and those who did not. A total of 16 of 50 patients developed reduced LVEF after 4.3 (SD = 2.8) years of follow-up. Baseline patient and electrocardiographic variables were similar between patients who did and did not develop decreased LVEF. Baseline LVEF was lower in patients who developed decreased LVEF than in those who did not (51.9% [SD = 2.2%] vs 54.9% [SD = 4.4%], p <0.01). Diastolic filling time (DFT) accounted for a significantly smaller percentage of the cardiac cycle in patients who developed decreased LVEF than in those who did not (35.9%, [SD = 6.9%] vs 44.4% [SD = 4.5%] p <0.01). In univariable logistic regression, DFT had a C-statistic of 0.86 (p <0.0001) for prediction of development of decreased LVEF. In conclusion, patients in whom DFT accounted for <38% of the cardiac cycle had a relative risk of developing decreased LVEF of 7.0 (95% confidence interval 3.0 to 16.0) compared to patients with DFT accounting for >= 38% of the cardiac cycle. (c) 2020 Elsevier Inc. 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