[Association of left bundle branch block definitions with response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients
V A Kuznetsov1, L M Malishevskii1, V V Todosiychuk1
1Tomsk National Research Medical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Tyumen Cardiology Research Center, Tomsk, Russia.
Insights
Different criteria for complete left bundle branch block (cLBBB) impact prediction of reverse left ventricular remodeling after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Strauss criteria showed highest sensitivity, while AHA and RAFT criteria offered the best specificity for predicting CRT response.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Electrophysiology
- Medical Imaging
Background:
- Complete left bundle branch block (cLBBB) is a key indicator for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
- Predicting reverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling post-CRT is crucial for patient outcomes.
- Various diagnostic criteria exist for identifying cLBBB, potentially impacting treatment prediction.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the diagnostic significance of different cLBBB criteria in predicting reverse LV remodeling.
- To evaluate the effectiveness of various cLBBB criteria in identifying patients who will benefit from CRT.
Main Methods:
- Ninety-three patients undergoing CRT were analyzed.
- Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LV ESV) changes determined CRT response (responders vs. non-responders).
- Nine different criteria for cLBBB diagnosis were assessed, including those from major clinical guidelines (AHA, ESC) and large multicenter studies (MADIT-CRT, REVERSE, RAFT).
Main Results:
- Incidence of cLBBB was significantly higher in CRT responders across multiple criteria (AHA, ESC 2013, Strauss, MADIT-CRT, REVERSE, RAFT).
- The Strauss criterion demonstrated the highest sensitivity (80.3%) and overall accuracy (72.04%).
- AHA and RAFT criteria exhibited the highest specificity (92.6%). Clinical guideline criteria (AHA, ESC 2013) showed strong consistency (κ=0.818).
Conclusions:
- The diagnostic criteria used for cLBBB influence the prediction of reverse LV remodeling following CRT.
- While guideline criteria (AHA, ESC 2013) and Strauss criteria are effective, they vary in sensitivity and specificity.
- Inconsistencies in cLBBB criteria used in large multicenter studies necessitate careful interpretation of their findings.
Abstract:
Aim To compare diagnostic significance of different criteria for complete left bundle branch block (cLBBB) in prediction of reverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).Materials and methods This study included 93 patients (men, 81.7 %; mean age at the time of implantation, 56.6±9.3 years). Achievement of a maximum decrease in LV end-systolic volume (ESV) was recorded during the entire follow-up period for evaluation of LV reversibility by CRT. Based on the dynamics of LV ESV, patients were divided into two groups, non-responders (n=27) and responders (n=66). cLBBB was determined by 9 criteria (ESC 2006 and 2013, AHA 2009, Strauss, and MIRACLE, CARE-HF, MADIT-CRT, REVERSE, and RAFT used in large multicenter studies).Results Incidence of cLBBB was significantly higher in the group of responders as demonstrated by the AHA (p=0.001), ESC 2013 (p=0.014), Strauss (p=0.002), MADIT-CRT (p=0.014), REVERSE (p=0.013), and RAFT (p<0.001) criteria. The highest specificity was shown for the AHA and RAFT (92.6 %) criteria, and the highest sensitivity and overall accuracy were shown for the Strauss (80.3 % and 72.04 %, respectively) criterium. The criteria proposed in actual clinical guidelines (AHA and ESC 2013) demonstrated a strong consistency in detecting cLBBB (κ=0.818, 95 % CI, 0.7-0.936; p<0.001). However, the Strauss and ESC 2006 / AHA / ESC 2013 showed the least consistency in identifying cLBBB. For the criteria described in large multicenter studies, consistency in detecting cLBBB was minimal in most cases. However, criteria with moderate or strong consistency were used in the studies, which results have substantiated the use of cLBBB as a selection criterium (MADIT-CRT, REVERSE, and RAFT).Conclusion The reversibility of LV remodeling associated with CRT was different in patients with cLBBB determined by different criteria. All actual cLBBB criteria (AHA, ESC 2013, and Strauss) were significantly more frequently observed in the responder group. Nevertheless, these criteria differed in their sensitivity and specificity. A number of large multicenter studies have used criteria with minimal consistency in detecting cLBBB, which should be taken into account in interpreting results of these studies.
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Heart Failure Drugs: β-Blockers
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy IV: Restrictive Cardiomyopathy


