Circulation reports · 2026
Prognostic Implications of Right Bundle Branch Block in the General Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Kawakami Hiroshi, Jinno Yuimi, Kawakami Miyuki, Tamaki Shunsuke, Nishimura Kazuhisa, Luo Yan, Yamaguchi Osamu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Because the prognostic significance of right bundle branch block (RBBB) in the general population remains uncertain, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association of RBBB with clinical outcomes in general population cohorts.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched major databases for population-based cohort studies reporting associations between RBBB and clinical outcomes. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using a random-effects model. A total of 14 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 5 (all-cause mortality), 4 (cardiovascular mortality), and 2 studies (pacemaker implantation) were included in the meta-analyses. RBBB was associated with a modest increase in all-cause mortality (HR 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.16), although the association was attenuated in the sensitivity analysis excluding the largest-weight study (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87-1.24). No significant association was observed between RBBB and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 0.90-1.59). RBBB was associated with an increased risk of pacemaker implantation (HR 3.03; 95% CI, 1.70-5.38), although the number of studies was limited.
CONCLUSIONS: RBBB was associated with a modest and partially unstable increase in all-cause mortality, but no significant association with cardiovascular mortality was observed. RBBB may reflect underlying risk profiles or progressive conduction system abnormalities, rather than serving as a strong independent predictor of mortality.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched major databases for population-based cohort studies reporting associations between RBBB and clinical outcomes. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using a random-effects model. A total of 14 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 5 (all-cause mortality), 4 (cardiovascular mortality), and 2 studies (pacemaker implantation) were included in the meta-analyses. RBBB was associated with a modest increase in all-cause mortality (HR 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.16), although the association was attenuated in the sensitivity analysis excluding the largest-weight study (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87-1.24). No significant association was observed between RBBB and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 0.90-1.59). RBBB was associated with an increased risk of pacemaker implantation (HR 3.03; 95% CI, 1.70-5.38), although the number of studies was limited.
CONCLUSIONS: RBBB was associated with a modest and partially unstable increase in all-cause mortality, but no significant association with cardiovascular mortality was observed. RBBB may reflect underlying risk profiles or progressive conduction system abnormalities, rather than serving as a strong independent predictor of mortality.