Journal of electrocardiology · 2018
Ejection fraction in left bundle branch block is disproportionately reduced in relation to amount of myocardial scar.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Axelsson Jimmy, Wieslander Björn, Jablonowski Robert, Klem Igor, Nijveldt Robin, Schelbert Erik B, Sörensson Peder, Sigfridsson Andreas, Chaudhry Uzma, Platonov Pyotr G, Borgquist Rasmus, Engblom Henrik, Strauss David G, Arheden Håkan, Atwater Brett D, Ugander Martin
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The relationship between left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and LV myocardial scar can identify potentially reversible causes of LV dysfunction. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) alters the electrical and mechanical activation of the LV. We hypothesized that the relationship between LVEF and scar extent is different in LBBB compared to controls.
METHODS: We compared the relationship between LVEF and scar burden between patients with LBBB and scar (n = 83), and patients with chronic ischemic heart disease and scar but no electrocardiographic conduction abnormality (controls, n = 90), who had undergone cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging at one of three centers. LVEF (%) was measured in CMR cine images. Scar burden was quantified by CMR late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and expressed as % of LV mass (%LVM). Maximum possible LVEF (LVEFmax) was defined as the function describing the hypotenuse in the LVEF versus myocardial scar extent scatter plot. Dysfunction index was defined as LVEFmax derived from the control cohort minus the measured LVEF.
RESULTS: Compared to controls with scar, LBBB with scar had a lower LVEF (median [interquartile range] 27 [19-38] vs 36 [25-50] %, p < 0.001), smaller scar (4 [1-9] vs 11 [6-20] %LVM, p < 0.001), and greater dysfunction index (39 [30-52] vs 21 [12-35] % points, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Among LBBB patients referred for CMR, LVEF is disproportionately reduced in relation to the amount of scar. Dyssynchrony in LBBB may thus impair compensation for loss of contractile myocardium.
METHODS: We compared the relationship between LVEF and scar burden between patients with LBBB and scar (n = 83), and patients with chronic ischemic heart disease and scar but no electrocardiographic conduction abnormality (controls, n = 90), who had undergone cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging at one of three centers. LVEF (%) was measured in CMR cine images. Scar burden was quantified by CMR late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and expressed as % of LV mass (%LVM). Maximum possible LVEF (LVEFmax) was defined as the function describing the hypotenuse in the LVEF versus myocardial scar extent scatter plot. Dysfunction index was defined as LVEFmax derived from the control cohort minus the measured LVEF.
RESULTS: Compared to controls with scar, LBBB with scar had a lower LVEF (median [interquartile range] 27 [19-38] vs 36 [25-50] %, p < 0.001), smaller scar (4 [1-9] vs 11 [6-20] %LVM, p < 0.001), and greater dysfunction index (39 [30-52] vs 21 [12-35] % points, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Among LBBB patients referred for CMR, LVEF is disproportionately reduced in relation to the amount of scar. Dyssynchrony in LBBB may thus impair compensation for loss of contractile myocardium.