右束支传导阻滞和左束支传导阻滞对心源性休克和心脏骤停患者的影响。

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Jonas Rusnak, Tobias Schupp, Kathrin Weidner, Marinela Ruka, Sascha Egner-Walter, Jan Forner, Alexander Schmitt, Muharrem Akin, Péter Tajti, Kambis Mashayekhi, Mohamed Ayoub, Ibrahim Akin, Michael Behnes
{"title":"右束支传导阻滞和左束支传导阻滞对心源性休克和心脏骤停患者的影响。","authors":"Jonas Rusnak, Tobias Schupp, Kathrin Weidner, Marinela Ruka, Sascha Egner-Walter, Jan Forner, Alexander Schmitt, Muharrem Akin, Péter Tajti, Kambis Mashayekhi, Mohamed Ayoub, Ibrahim Akin, Michael Behnes","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The study investigates the prognostic impact of right bundle branch block (RBBB) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) compared with no bundle branch block (BBB). In patients with heart failure, existence of RBBB and LBBB has influence on prognosis.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective registry-study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>ICU of a tertiary academic hospital in Germany.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Adult patients with CS.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Consecutive patients with CS were included. The prognostic impact of RBBB and LBBB on 30-day all-cause mortality was tested within the entire cohort and in the subgroup of CS patients with cardiac arrest at admission. The final study cohort comprised 248 patients. Patients with RBBB showed the highest 30-day all-cause mortality followed by LBBB and no BBB (72.5% vs. 52.9% vs. 50.0%; log-rank p = 0.015). These findings were consistent even after solely including CS patients with cardiac arrest (90.0% vs. 73.3% vs. 62.2%; log-rank p = 0.008). After adjustment for lactate, norepinephrine, troponin I, Acute Physiology Score, Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions shock stage, and heart rate in a multivariable Cox regression analysis, RBBB still revealed a negative impact on 30-day all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.807; 95% CI, 1.107-2.947; p = 0.018), whereas LBBB was not associated with 30-day all-cause mortality. In this multivariable Cox regression model lactate (HR, 1.065; 95% CI, 1.018-1.115; p = 0.006), troponin I (HR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.001-1.005; p = 0.001), and Acute Physiology Score (HR, 1.033; 95% CI, 1.001-1.066; p = 0.041) were as well associated with 30-day all-cause mortality. Finally, no association of RBBB was found with the incidence of liver or severe renal failure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Besides the Acute Physiology Score, lactate, and troponin levels, RBBB was associated with an increased 30-day all-cause mortality in consecutive CS patients with and without cardiac arrest, whereas LBBB showed no prognostic impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of Right and Left Bundle Branch Block in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock and Cardiac Arrest.\",\"authors\":\"Jonas Rusnak, Tobias Schupp, Kathrin Weidner, Marinela Ruka, Sascha Egner-Walter, Jan Forner, Alexander Schmitt, Muharrem Akin, Péter Tajti, Kambis Mashayekhi, Mohamed Ayoub, Ibrahim Akin, Michael Behnes\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The study investigates the prognostic impact of right bundle branch block (RBBB) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) compared with no bundle branch block (BBB). In patients with heart failure, existence of RBBB and LBBB has influence on prognosis.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective registry-study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>ICU of a tertiary academic hospital in Germany.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Adult patients with CS.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Consecutive patients with CS were included. The prognostic impact of RBBB and LBBB on 30-day all-cause mortality was tested within the entire cohort and in the subgroup of CS patients with cardiac arrest at admission. The final study cohort comprised 248 patients. Patients with RBBB showed the highest 30-day all-cause mortality followed by LBBB and no BBB (72.5% vs. 52.9% vs. 50.0%; log-rank p = 0.015). These findings were consistent even after solely including CS patients with cardiac arrest (90.0% vs. 73.3% vs. 62.2%; log-rank p = 0.008). After adjustment for lactate, norepinephrine, troponin I, Acute Physiology Score, Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions shock stage, and heart rate in a multivariable Cox regression analysis, RBBB still revealed a negative impact on 30-day all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.807; 95% CI, 1.107-2.947; p = 0.018), whereas LBBB was not associated with 30-day all-cause mortality. In this multivariable Cox regression model lactate (HR, 1.065; 95% CI, 1.018-1.115; p = 0.006), troponin I (HR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.001-1.005; p = 0.001), and Acute Physiology Score (HR, 1.033; 95% CI, 1.001-1.066; p = 0.041) were as well associated with 30-day all-cause mortality. Finally, no association of RBBB was found with the incidence of liver or severe renal failure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Besides the Acute Physiology Score, lactate, and troponin levels, RBBB was associated with an increased 30-day all-cause mortality in consecutive CS patients with and without cardiac arrest, whereas LBBB showed no prognostic impact.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006459\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006459","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的该研究探讨了右束支传导阻滞(RBBB)和左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)与无束支传导阻滞(BBB)相比对心源性休克(CS)患者预后的影响。在心力衰竭患者中,RBBB和LBBB的存在对预后有影响:前瞻性登记研究:患者: CS成人患者:干预措施:无:测量和主要结果研究纳入了连续的 CS 患者。在整个队列和入院时心脏骤停的 CS 患者亚组中测试了 RBBB 和 LBBB 对 30 天全因死亡率的预后影响。最终的研究队列由 248 名患者组成。RBBB 患者的 30 天全因死亡率最高,其次是 LBBB 和无 BBB(72.5% vs. 52.9% vs. 50.0%;log-rank p = 0.015)。即使仅将心脏骤停的 CS 患者包括在内,这些结果也是一致的(90.0% vs. 73.3% vs. 62.2%;log-rank p = 0.008)。在多变量 Cox 回归分析中对乳酸、去甲肾上腺素、肌钙蛋白 I、急性生理学评分、心血管血管造影与介入学会休克分期和心率进行调整后,RBBB 仍对 30 天全因死亡率有负面影响(危险比 [HR],1.807;95% CI,1.107-2.947;P = 0.018),而 LBBB 与 30 天全因死亡率无关。在这一多变量 Cox 回归模型中,乳酸(HR,1.065;95% CI,1.018-1.115;p = 0.006)、肌钙蛋白 I(HR,1.003;95% CI,1.001-1.005;p = 0.001)和急性生理学评分(HR,1.033;95% CI,1.001-1.066;p = 0.041)与 30 天全因死亡率同样相关。最后,RBBB与肝功能衰竭或严重肾功能衰竭的发生率没有关联:结论:除了急性生理学评分、乳酸和肌钙蛋白水平外,RBBB还与连续CS患者30天全因死亡率增加有关,无论患者是否发生心脏骤停,而LBBB对预后没有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Influence of Right and Left Bundle Branch Block in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock and Cardiac Arrest.

Objectives: The study investigates the prognostic impact of right bundle branch block (RBBB) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) compared with no bundle branch block (BBB). In patients with heart failure, existence of RBBB and LBBB has influence on prognosis.

Design: Prospective registry-study.

Setting: ICU of a tertiary academic hospital in Germany.

Patients: Adult patients with CS.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: Consecutive patients with CS were included. The prognostic impact of RBBB and LBBB on 30-day all-cause mortality was tested within the entire cohort and in the subgroup of CS patients with cardiac arrest at admission. The final study cohort comprised 248 patients. Patients with RBBB showed the highest 30-day all-cause mortality followed by LBBB and no BBB (72.5% vs. 52.9% vs. 50.0%; log-rank p = 0.015). These findings were consistent even after solely including CS patients with cardiac arrest (90.0% vs. 73.3% vs. 62.2%; log-rank p = 0.008). After adjustment for lactate, norepinephrine, troponin I, Acute Physiology Score, Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions shock stage, and heart rate in a multivariable Cox regression analysis, RBBB still revealed a negative impact on 30-day all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.807; 95% CI, 1.107-2.947; p = 0.018), whereas LBBB was not associated with 30-day all-cause mortality. In this multivariable Cox regression model lactate (HR, 1.065; 95% CI, 1.018-1.115; p = 0.006), troponin I (HR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.001-1.005; p = 0.001), and Acute Physiology Score (HR, 1.033; 95% CI, 1.001-1.066; p = 0.041) were as well associated with 30-day all-cause mortality. Finally, no association of RBBB was found with the incidence of liver or severe renal failure.

Conclusions: Besides the Acute Physiology Score, lactate, and troponin levels, RBBB was associated with an increased 30-day all-cause mortality in consecutive CS patients with and without cardiac arrest, whereas LBBB showed no prognostic impact.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信