International journal of cardiology · 2006
Right bundle-branch block in anterior acute myocardial infarction in the coronary intervention era: acute angiographic findings and prognosis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Kurisu Satoshi, Inoue Ichiro, Kawagoe Takuji, Ishihara Masaharu, Shimatani Yuji, Hata Takaki, Nakama Yasuharu, Kijima Yasufumi, Kagawa Eisuke
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Previous studies in the prethrombolytic or thrombolytic era have reported that right bundle-branch block (RBBB) is associated with poor clinical outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
METHODS AND RESULTS: The purpose of this study was to examine the relations between RBBB and angiographic findings or clinical outcomes in patients with AMI in the coronary intervention era. A total of 430 patients with a first anterior AMI who underwent coronary angiography within 12 h after the onset were enrolled in this study. Seventy-one patients (17%) had RBBB documented during their hospital stay. RBBB was documented on admission in 35 patients. Patients with RBBB were older (p<0.01) and had prodromal angina less frequently (p=0.03) than those without. On the initial angiograms, patients with RBBB had an occluded left anterior descending artery (p<0.01) and multivessel disease (p=0.01) more frequently than those without. Thirty-day mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with RBBB than in those without (14.0% vs 1.9%, p<0.01). Multiple logistic-regression analysis demonstrated that RBBB (odds ratio 5.89, p<0.01) and multivessel disease (odds ratio 4.36, p=0.01) were independent predictors of 30-day mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggested that RBBB was still associated with poor clinical outcome in patients with anterior AMI even in the coronary intervention era.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The purpose of this study was to examine the relations between RBBB and angiographic findings or clinical outcomes in patients with AMI in the coronary intervention era. A total of 430 patients with a first anterior AMI who underwent coronary angiography within 12 h after the onset were enrolled in this study. Seventy-one patients (17%) had RBBB documented during their hospital stay. RBBB was documented on admission in 35 patients. Patients with RBBB were older (p<0.01) and had prodromal angina less frequently (p=0.03) than those without. On the initial angiograms, patients with RBBB had an occluded left anterior descending artery (p<0.01) and multivessel disease (p=0.01) more frequently than those without. Thirty-day mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with RBBB than in those without (14.0% vs 1.9%, p<0.01). Multiple logistic-regression analysis demonstrated that RBBB (odds ratio 5.89, p<0.01) and multivessel disease (odds ratio 4.36, p=0.01) were independent predictors of 30-day mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggested that RBBB was still associated with poor clinical outcome in patients with anterior AMI even in the coronary intervention era.