CMR characterisation of patients with heart failure and Left Bundle Branch Block

Raluca Tomoaia, Peter Harrison, Lydia Bevis, A. Wahab, Patrick Thompson, Christopher ED Saunderson, Eylem Levelt, Erica Dall’Armellina, Pankaj Garg, John P Greenwood, Sven Plein, Peter P Swoboda
{"title":"CMR characterisation of patients with heart failure and Left Bundle Branch Block","authors":"Raluca Tomoaia, Peter Harrison, Lydia Bevis, A. Wahab, Patrick Thompson, Christopher ED Saunderson, Eylem Levelt, Erica Dall’Armellina, Pankaj Garg, John P Greenwood, Sven Plein, Peter P Swoboda","doi":"10.1093/ehjimp/qyae047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n We aimed to identify the distinctive cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) features of patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) of presumed non-ischaemic aetiology. The secondary aim was to determine whether these individuals exhibit characteristics that could potentially serve as predictors of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery as compared to patients without LBBB.\n \n \n \n We prospectively recruited patients with HFrEF (LVEF ≤40%) on echocardiography who were referred for early CMR examination. Patients with an established diagnosis of coronary artery disease and known structural or congenital heart disease were excluded. LV recovery was defined as achieving ≥10% absolute improvement to ≥40% in LVEF between baseline evaluation to CMR.\n \n \n \n A total of 391 patients were recruited including 115 (29.4%) with LBBB. Compared to HF patients without LBBB, those with LBBB exhibited larger left ventricles and smaller right ventricles, but no differences were observed with respect to LVEF (35.8 ± 12 vs. 38 ± 12 %, p=0.105). The overall rate of LV recovery from baseline echocardiogram to CMR (70 [42 - 128] days) was not significantly different between LBBB and non-LBBB patients (27.8% vs. 31.5%, p=0.47). Reduced LVEF remained an independent predictor of LV non-recovery only in patients with LBBB.\n \n \n \n Patients presenting with HFrEF and LBBB had larger LV cavities and smaller RV cavities than those without LBBB but no difference in prevalence of scar or ischaemia. The rates of LV recovery were similar between both groups, which supports current guidelines to defer device therapy until 3-6 months of GDMT, rather than early CMR and device implantation.\n","PeriodicalId":508944,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal - Imaging Methods and Practice","volume":"54 13","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal - Imaging Methods and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjimp/qyae047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We aimed to identify the distinctive cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) features of patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) of presumed non-ischaemic aetiology. The secondary aim was to determine whether these individuals exhibit characteristics that could potentially serve as predictors of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery as compared to patients without LBBB. We prospectively recruited patients with HFrEF (LVEF ≤40%) on echocardiography who were referred for early CMR examination. Patients with an established diagnosis of coronary artery disease and known structural or congenital heart disease were excluded. LV recovery was defined as achieving ≥10% absolute improvement to ≥40% in LVEF between baseline evaluation to CMR. A total of 391 patients were recruited including 115 (29.4%) with LBBB. Compared to HF patients without LBBB, those with LBBB exhibited larger left ventricles and smaller right ventricles, but no differences were observed with respect to LVEF (35.8 ± 12 vs. 38 ± 12 %, p=0.105). The overall rate of LV recovery from baseline echocardiogram to CMR (70 [42 - 128] days) was not significantly different between LBBB and non-LBBB patients (27.8% vs. 31.5%, p=0.47). Reduced LVEF remained an independent predictor of LV non-recovery only in patients with LBBB. Patients presenting with HFrEF and LBBB had larger LV cavities and smaller RV cavities than those without LBBB but no difference in prevalence of scar or ischaemia. The rates of LV recovery were similar between both groups, which supports current guidelines to defer device therapy until 3-6 months of GDMT, rather than early CMR and device implantation.
心力衰竭和左束支传导阻滞患者的 CMR 特征
我们的目的是确定左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)和射血分数降低型心力衰竭(HFrEF)患者的心血管磁共振(CMR)特征。次要目的是确定与无左束支传导阻滞的患者相比,这些患者是否具有可预测左室射血分数(LVEF)恢复的特征。 我们前瞻性地招募了超声心动图检查结果为 HFrEF(LVEF ≤40%)的患者,这些患者被转诊接受早期 CMR 检查。已确诊冠状动脉疾病和已知结构性或先天性心脏病的患者除外。LV 恢复的定义是,从基线评估到 CMR 检查期间,LVEF 绝对值改善≥10% 至≥40%。 共招募了391名患者,其中包括115名(29.4%)LBBB患者。与无 LBBB 的 HF 患者相比,LBBB 患者的左心室较大,而右心室较小,但 LVEF 方面未观察到差异(35.8 ± 12 vs. 38 ± 12 %,P=0.105)。从基线超声心动图到 CMR(70 [42 - 128] 天),LBBB 和非 LBBB 患者的左心室总恢复率没有显著差异(27.8% vs. 31.5%,p=0.47)。只有在LBBB患者中,LVEF降低仍是左心室未恢复的独立预测因素。 与无 LBBB 的患者相比,HFrEF 和 LBBB 患者的左心室腔较大,左心室房室腔较小,但瘢痕或缺血的发生率没有差异。两组患者的左心室恢复率相似,这支持了目前的指南,即推迟设备治疗至 GDMT 3-6 个月后,而不是尽早进行 CMR 和设备植入。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信