Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2026
Maskerading Bundle Branch Block Versus Standard Bifascicular Block: A Prognostic Analysis Results Through Electrophysiological Study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Tavares de Albuquerque Afonso Luiz, Coutinho Vaz de Lira Caroline de Paula, de Carvalho Neto José Nilo, Rufino Pereira Silva Rodrigo, Salviano de Macedo Neto Iremar, Filho Dário Celestino Sobral
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Maskerading bundle branch block (MBBB) is a rare variant of standard bifascicular bundle branch block (SBBB), associated with poor prognosis and a higher need for pacemaker implantation. Most available data are limited to case reports and reviews.
METHODS: In this prospective cross-sectional study, we evaluated 27 patients with MBBB (Group I) and 18 with SBBB (Group II), all undergoing echocardiography, 24-h Holter monitoring, and invasive electrophysiological study (EPS) after recruitment.
RESULTS: Group I patients had worse functional status (NYHA III-IV), larger ventricular diameters, and lower ejection fraction. The HV interval was significantly longer in Group I (66.3 ± 18.3 vs. 52.9 ± 8.1 ms; p = 0.006). Pacemaker implantation was required in 48% of Group I patients versus none in Group II (p = 0.001). Persistent atrial fibrillation was also more frequent in Group I (39.5% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.018).
CONCLUSION: MBBB is associated with more severe myocardial and conduction system impairment compared to SBBB, supporting its role as a marker of worse prognosis.
METHODS: In this prospective cross-sectional study, we evaluated 27 patients with MBBB (Group I) and 18 with SBBB (Group II), all undergoing echocardiography, 24-h Holter monitoring, and invasive electrophysiological study (EPS) after recruitment.
RESULTS: Group I patients had worse functional status (NYHA III-IV), larger ventricular diameters, and lower ejection fraction. The HV interval was significantly longer in Group I (66.3 ± 18.3 vs. 52.9 ± 8.1 ms; p = 0.006). Pacemaker implantation was required in 48% of Group I patients versus none in Group II (p = 0.001). Persistent atrial fibrillation was also more frequent in Group I (39.5% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.018).
CONCLUSION: MBBB is associated with more severe myocardial and conduction system impairment compared to SBBB, supporting its role as a marker of worse prognosis.