Effect of the isolated left bundle branch block on systolic and diastolic functions of left ventricle

Citation
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
ISSN journal
08947317 → ACNP
Volume
14
Issue
11
Year of publication
2001
Pages
1075 - 1079
Database
ISI
SICI code
0894-7317(200111)14:11<1075:EOTILB>2.0.ZU;2-8
Abstract
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.