Delayed spontaneous reversibility of left bundle branch block in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy: a case report

Left bundle branch block(LBBB)causes a delay in left ventricular contraction with an unsynchronized ventricular systole.LBBB is an independent determinant of morbi-mortality mainly when associated with cardiomyopathy and left ventricular dysfunction.[1] LBBB due to non-ischemic cardiomyopathy is considered non-reversible.Such irreversibility occurs because LBBB and cardiomyopathy act in a synergic manner in order to maintain both situations.However,there are a few reports in the literature showing that some patients have had an improvement in cardiac function with normalization of QRS and have experienced a reverse remodelling with pharmacological therapy only.[2–4]

Left bundle branch pacing set to outshine biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy?

The deleterious effects of long-term right ventricular pacing necessitated the search for alternative pacing sites which could prevent or alleviate pacinginduced cardiomyopathy.Until recently,biventricular pacing(BiVP)was the only modality which could mitigate or prevent pacing induced dysfunction.Further,BiVP could resynchronize the baseline electromechanical dssynchrony in heart failure and improve outcomes.However,the high non-response rate of around 20%-30%remains a major limitation.This non-response has been largely attributable to the direct non-physiological stimulation of the left ventricular myocardium bypassing the conduction system.To overcome this limitation,the concept of conduction system pacing(CSP)came up.Despite initial success of the first CSP via His bundle pacing(HBP),certain drawbacks including lead instability and dislodgements,steep learning curve and rapid battery depletion on many occasions prevented its widespread use for cardiac resynchronization therapy(CRT).Subsequently,CSP via left bundle branch-area pacing(LBBP)was developed in 2018,which over the last few years has shown efficacy comparable to BiVP-CRT in small observational studies.Further,its safety has also been well established and is largely free of the pitfalls of the HBP-CRT.In the recent metanalysis by Yasmin et al,comprising of 6 studies with 389 participants,LBBPCRT was superior to BiVP-CRT in terms of QRS duration,left ventricular ejection fraction,cardiac chamber dimensions,lead thresholds,and functional status amongst heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.However,there are important limitations of the study including the small overall numbers,inclusion of only a single small randomized controlled trial(RCT)and a small follow-up duration.Further,the entire study population analyzed was from China which makes generalizability a concern.Despite the concerns,the meta-analysis adds to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of LBBP-CRT.At this stage,one must acknowledge that the fact that still our opinions on this technique are largely based on observational data and there is a dire need for larger RCTs to ascertain the position of LBBPCRT in management of heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.

Clinical efficacy and predictor of cardiac resynchronization therapy on left bundle branch block-associated heart dysfunction

Background Left bundle branch block （LBBB） results in an altered pattern of left ventricular （LV） activation and subsequent contraction. Cardiac synchrony and cardiac function are deteriorated by LBBB. However, the effect of LBBB history on progressive heart dysfunction and clinical efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy （CRT） in such patients are not clear. In this study we explore the clinical efficacy and predictor of cardiac resynchronization therapy in LBBB heart dysfunction. Methods Twenty-seven LBBB patients with severe heart failure were treated with CRT. Twenty-six LBBB patients without CRT served as control. During 6 months follow-up, ECG, plasma NT-proBNP and echocardiogram indexes were measured. Results Compared with baseline, NYHA functional class of 23 patients （85.2%） was improved in CRT group. Compared with baseline and control, QRS duration （QRSd） was significantly more narrow （P = 0.023, P = 0.019）, NT-proBNP was significantly lower （P = 0.011,P = 0.009）, ventricular septal to left ventricular posterior wall delay time and left ventricular dyssynchrony index （Ts-SD） were significantly worse （P 〈 0.05）; left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-systolic volume, mitral regurgitation area were significantly improved in CRT group （P 〈 0.05）. when the LBBB history was I〉 2 years and QRSd I〉 155 ms, the sensitivity and specificity of CRT super-response were 53.4% and 85.6% respectively. Conclusions CRT can improve the synchronization and hemodynamic of LBBB patients with heart dysfunction, the LBBB history I〉 2 years and QRSd I〉 155 ms are one of the CRT super-response predictors.

Cardioprotective effects of trimetazidine on patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block

Background The effects of trimetazidine on patients with dilated cardiomyopathy（DCM） and left bundle branch block（LBBB） are not clear. Methods Sixty consecutive patients with DCM, LBBB and heart dysfunction（35% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45%） were randomly allocated to heart failure therapy plus trimetazidine group（20 mg three times a day; 30 patients） or heart failure therapy alone group（30 patients）. During follow-up of 6months, QRS morphology, plasma NT-proBNP, 6-minute walk test（6MWT） and echocardiographic indexes were measured. Results At the 6th month, a significant functional improvement was noted in patients receiving trimetazidine added to heart failure treatment. In patients from the trimetazidine group, an increase of left ventricular ejection fraction（LVEF） was noted（from 38 ± 5.5% to 47 ± 7.1%, P = 0.020）. The increase of LVEF in the trimetazidine group was associated with a more significant reduction of the left ventricular endsystolic diameter（LVESD） compared with the control group at 6-month follow-up. The NT-pro BNP levels decreased significantly in the trimetazidine group（3.11 ± 0.47 at baseline and 2.77 ± 0.45 at 6-month followup, P 〈 0.01） and the 6MWT increased significantly in the trimetazidine group（325 ± 44 m at baseline and419 ± 56 m at 6-month follow-up, P 〈 0.01）. The differences in NT-pro BNP levels（2.77 ± 0.45 vs 2.96 ±0.46, P = 0.036） and 6MWT（419 ± 56 m vs 366 ± 54 m, P = 0.032） between the two groups were significant at 6-month follow-up. Conclusions Trimetazidine can improve LV function caused by DCM and LBBB. The positive effects of trimetazidine on LV function are especially evident in patients with optimization of drug therapy for heart failure, which strongly suggests an additive effect of these therapy modalities.

Intermittent Left Bundle Branch Block and Myocardial Ischemia in Patient Without Coronary Artery Stenosis:A Case Report

Left bundle branch block （ LBBB ）, traditionally viewed as an electrophysiologic abnormality, is increasingly recognized for its effects on hemodynamics and patient＇s prognosis^[1]. Exercise nuclear studies frequently show reversible perfusion defects in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease^[2] and some patients with intermittent LBBB develop angina coincident with the onset of LBBB^[3]. We report a case of intermittent LBBB with abnormal stress technetium 99m TC single-photon emission computed tomography （SPECT） study and normal coronary artery angiography.

Pacemaker post transcatheter aortic valve replacement:A multifactorial risk?

Pacemaker post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement is related to multifactorial risk.Nwaedozie et al brought to the body of evidence electrocardiogram and clinical findings.However,procedural characteristics have at least as much impact on the final need for a permanent pacemaker and potentially on the pacing rate.In this regard,long-term follow-up and understanding of the impact of long-term stimulation is of utmost importance.

Clinical Characteristics and Prognosis of End-stage Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Background： End-stage hypertrophic cardiomyopathy （HCM） is complicated by substantial adverse events. However, few studies have focused on electrocardiographic features and their prognostic values in HCM. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical manifestations and prognostic value of electrocardiography in patients with end-stage HCM. Methods： End-stage HCM patients were enrolled from a total of 1844 consecutive HCM patients from April 2002 to November 2013 at Fuwai Hospital. Clinical data, including medical history, electrocardiography, and echocardiography, were analyzed. Cox hazards regression analysis was used to assess the risk factors for cardiovascular mortality. Results： End-stage HCM was identified in 99 （5.4%） patients, averaged at 52 ± 16 years old at entry. Atrial fibrillation was observed in 53 patients and mural thrombus in 19 patients. During 3.9 ±3.0 years of follow-up, embolic stroke, refractory heart failure, and death or transplantation were observed in 20, 39, and 51 patients, respectively. The incidence of annual mortality was 13.2%. Multivariate Cox hazards regression analysis identified New York Heart Association Class （NYHA） Ill/IV at entry （hazard ratio [HR]： 1.99; 95% confidence interval [C/I： 1.05-3.80; P = 0.036）, left bundle branch block （LBBB） （HR： 2.80; 95% CI： 1.47-5.31; P = 0.002）, and an abnormal Q wave （HR： 2.21; 95% CI： 1.16-4.23; P = 0.016） as independent predictors of cardiovascular death, in accordance with all-cause death and heart failure-related death. Conclusions： LBBB and an abnormal Q wave are risk factors of cardiovascular mortality in end-stage HCM and provide new evidence for early intervention. Susceptibility of end-stage HCM patients to mural thrombus and embolic events warrants further attention.