K. Ozdemir et al., Effect of the isolated left bundle branch block on systolic and diastolic functions of left ventricle, J AM S ECHO, 14(11), 2001, pp. 1075-1079
Citations number
21
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiovascular & Respiratory Systems
Journal title
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY
Background: We planned this study to evaluate the effects of left bundle br
anch block (LBBB) on systolic and diastolic functions of left ventricle (LV
) that have not previously been investigated in detail.
Material and Methods. Forty-five cases diagnosed as isolated LBBB according
to the standard electrocardiographic criteria (group I, mean age: 60 +/- 1
2 years) were taken as the case group and 65 cases with normal conduction s
ystem (group II, mean age 58 +/- 14 years) were taken as the control group.
Echocardiography was performed to all patients and coronary angiography wa
s performed to 21 patients in group I and 35 patients in group II. In addit
ion to standard systolic and diastolic function parameters, isovolumetric r
elaxation time (IRT), isovolumetric contraction time (ICT), and ejection ti
me (ET) were measured by echocardiography, and the myocardial performance i
ndex (MPI) [(IRT+ICT)/ET] was calculated. IV end-diastolic pressure was cal
culated for the patients undergoing coronary angiography.
Results: In group I, IV end-systolic diameter was greater (3.1 +/- 0.4 cin
vs 2.8 +/- 0.4 cm, P < .001) and ejection fraction was lower (64% +/- 6% vs
68% +/- 6%, P < .001) than those of group II. Rapid filling deceleration t
ime and rate was markedly different in group I (respectively, 133 +/- 50 ms
vs 166 +/- 24 ins, P < .001; 608 +/- 291 cm/s(2) vs 383 +/- 116 cm/s(2), P
< .001). In addition, it was found that LBBB caused shortening of IV diast
olic period and ET markedly (respectively, 347 +/- 116 ins vs 394 +/- 106 m
s, P = .03; 255 +/- 40 ms, vs 294 +/- 21 ms, P < .001) and prolongation of
IRT and ICT (respectively; 124 +/- 36 ins vs 91 +/- 16 ms, 96 +/- 35 in vs
38 +/- 9 ins, P < .001). The MPI was predominantly higher in group I (0.89
+/- 0.29 vs 0.40 +/- 0.06, P < .001). Invasively determined IV end-diastoli
c pressure was found higher in group I (14 +/- 3 min Hg vs 10 +/- 3 mm. Hg,
P < .001).
Conclusion: A marked elevation of the IV MPI and end-diastolic pressure, pa
rallel to changes of conventional echocardiographic parameters, in patients
with isolated LBBB points out that LBBB causes marked deterioration on IV
systolic and diastolic functions.