Heart rhythm · 2019
An S wave in ECG lead V6 predicts poor response to cardiac resynchronization therapy and long-term outcome.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jiang Zeyu, Qiu Yuanhao, Qian Zhiyong, Wang Yao, Zhao Yongwei, Hou Xiaofeng, Liang Yanchun, Zheng Liangrong, Xu Geng, Su Yangang, Gu Xiang, Zou Jiangang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a standard treatment for selected patients with chronic heart failure (HF). However, up to 30%-50% of patients still do not respond to CRT.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to identify the predictive value of an S wave in lead V6 in CRT response in patients with complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB).
METHODS: The CLBBB definition included the Strauss left bundle branch block criteria and the absence of q waves in leads I, V5, and V6. According to the electrocardiogram at baseline, CLBBB patients were divided into 3 groups: T-CLBBB group (CLBBB without an S wave in lead V5 or V6), V5S group (CLBBB with an S wave in lead V5 and no S wave in lead V6), and V5&V6S group (CLBBB with S waves in leads V5 and V6). CRT response was defined as left ventricular end-systolic volume reduction ≥ 15% at 6-month follow-up. The combined end point included HF rehospitalization or all-cause death.
RESULTS: Of 181 patients with left bundle branch block-like pattern, 112 patients with CLBBB were included into 3 groups: 54 in the T-CLBBB group, 32 in the V5S group, and 26 in the V5&V6S group. The CRT response rate was 85.2% (46), 65.6% (21), and 38.5% (10), respectively (P < .001). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated that patients in the V5&V6S group had a higher incidence of HF rehospitalization or all-cause death than those in the other 2 groups (P < .001). In a multivariate logistic regression model analysis, an S wave in lead V6 was significantly associated with CRT nonresponse (hazard ratio 0.33; 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.96; P = .042).
CONCLUSION: An S wave in lead V6 can predict poor response to CRT and long-term outcome.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to identify the predictive value of an S wave in lead V6 in CRT response in patients with complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB).
METHODS: The CLBBB definition included the Strauss left bundle branch block criteria and the absence of q waves in leads I, V5, and V6. According to the electrocardiogram at baseline, CLBBB patients were divided into 3 groups: T-CLBBB group (CLBBB without an S wave in lead V5 or V6), V5S group (CLBBB with an S wave in lead V5 and no S wave in lead V6), and V5&V6S group (CLBBB with S waves in leads V5 and V6). CRT response was defined as left ventricular end-systolic volume reduction ≥ 15% at 6-month follow-up. The combined end point included HF rehospitalization or all-cause death.
RESULTS: Of 181 patients with left bundle branch block-like pattern, 112 patients with CLBBB were included into 3 groups: 54 in the T-CLBBB group, 32 in the V5S group, and 26 in the V5&V6S group. The CRT response rate was 85.2% (46), 65.6% (21), and 38.5% (10), respectively (P < .001). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated that patients in the V5&V6S group had a higher incidence of HF rehospitalization or all-cause death than those in the other 2 groups (P < .001). In a multivariate logistic regression model analysis, an S wave in lead V6 was significantly associated with CRT nonresponse (hazard ratio 0.33; 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.96; P = .042).
CONCLUSION: An S wave in lead V6 can predict poor response to CRT and long-term outcome.