Relationships between electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony in patients with left bundle branch block and healthy
Saara Sillanmäki1,2, Jukka A Lipponen3, Mika P Tarvainen4,3
1Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Kuopio University Hospital, Puijonlaaksontie 2, 70210, Kuopio, Finland. saara.sillanmaki@kuh.fi.
Insights
Left bundle branch block (LBBB) can cause dyssynchronous left ventricular (LV) contraction. QRS duration and end-diastolic volume predict mechanical dyssynchrony in LBBB patients, explaining 55% of its variation.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Cardiac Electrophysiology
- Medical Imaging
Background:
- Abnormal electrical activation can lead to dyssynchronous left ventricular (LV) contraction.
- Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is a common conduction abnormality affecting LV electrical activation.
- Understanding the relationship between electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony in LBBB is crucial for patient management.
Purpose of the Study:
- To characterize and analyze electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony in patients with LBBB.
- To identify predictors of mechanical dyssynchrony in LBBB.
- To compare electrical and mechanical synchrony between LBBB patients and healthy controls.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) data from 994 patients, including 43 with LBBB and 24 controls.
- Characterization of electrical activation using vector electrocardiography (VECG).
- Assessment of LV function and mechanical dyssynchrony using ECG-gated MPI phase analysis.
Main Results:
- QRS duration (QRSd) and end-diastolic volume (EDV) significantly correlated with mechanical dyssynchrony (phase bandwidth).
- QRSd and EDV independently explained 55% of the variation in mechanical dyssynchrony.
- Patients with LBBB and mechanical dyssynchrony had significantly wider QRSd and larger EDV compared to those without.
Conclusions:
- Left bundle branch block (LBBB) does not always result in mechanical dyssynchrony.
- QRS duration and end-diastolic volume are key predictors of mechanical dyssynchrony in LBBB.
- Specific cut-off values for QRSd (≥165 ms) and EDV (≥109 mL) may indicate mechanical dyssynchrony in LBBB.
Background:
Abnormal electrical activation may cause dyssynchronous left ventricular (LV) contraction. In this study, we characterized and analyzed electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony in patient with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and healthy controls.
Methods:
Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) data from 994 patients were analyzed. Forty-three patient fulfilled criteria for LBBB and 24 for controls. Electrical activation was characterized with vector electrocardiography (VECG) and LV function including mechanical dyssynchrony with ECG-gated MPI phase analysis.
Results:
QRS duration (QRSd; r = 0.69, P < .001) and a few other VECG parameters correlated significantly with phase bandwidth (phaseBW) representing mechanical dyssynchrony. End-diastolic volume (EDV; r = 0.59, P < .001), ejection fraction and end-systolic volume correlated also with phaseBW. QRSd (β = 0.47, P < .001) and EDV (β = 0.36, P = .001) were independently associated with phaseBW explaining 55% of its variation. Sixty percent of patients with LBBB had significant mechanical dyssynchrony. Those patients had wider QRSd (159 vs 147 ms, P = .013) and larger EDV (144 vs 94 mL, P = .008) than those with synchronous LV contraction. Cut-off values for mechanical dyssynchrony seen in patients with LBBB were QRSd ≥ 165 ms and EDV ≥ 109 mL.
Conclusions:
Despite obvious conduction abnormality, LBBB is not always accompanied by mechanical dyssynchrony. QRSd and EDV explained 55% of variation seen in phaseBW. These two parameters were statistically different between LBBB cases with and without mechanical dyssynchrony.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients
Relationship Formation
Ending Relationships
Pharmacokinetic–Pharmacodynamic Relationship: Duration of Dose-Effect Relationship
Relationship Growth
Pharmacokinetic–Pharmacodynamic Relationship: Intensity of Dose-Effect Relationship


