4.4 Article

The Prognostic Significance of Right Bundle Branch Block: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies

Journal

CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 10, Pages 604-613

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/clc.22454

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81300244, 81400898]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThe prognostic significance of right bundle branch block (RBBB) is inconsistent across studies. We aimed to assess the association between RBBB (in general population and patients with heart disease) and risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (MI), and heart failure (HF). HypothesisRBBB may be associated with increased risk of death. MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to February 2015 were searched for prospective cohort studies that reported RBBB at baseline and all-cause mortality, cardiac death, MI, and HF at follow-up. A meta-analysis of published data was undertaken primarily by means of fixed-effects models. ResultsNineteen cohort studies including 201437 participants were included with a mean follow-up period ranging from 1 to 246 months. For general population with RBBB, the pooled adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.33) compared with no BBB. General population with RBBB had an increased risk of cardiac death (HR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.17-1.74). For patients with RBBB and acute MI, the pooled risk ratio was 2.31 (95% CI: 2.13-2.49) for in-hospital mortality, 2.85 (95% CI: 2.46-3.30) for 30-day mortality, and 1.96 (95% CI: 1.59-2.42) for longer-term mortality. For acute HF patients, the pooled risk ratio of all-cause mortality was 1.11 (95% CI: 1.06-1.16), and for chronic HF patients it was 1.75 (95% CI: 1.38-2.22). ConclusionsRight bundle branch block is associated with an increased risk of mortality in general population and patients with heart disease.

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