Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction with right bundle branch block: should new onset right bundle branch block be added to future guidelines as an indication for reperfusion therapy?

P. Widimský, F. Roháč, J. Stásek, P. Kala, R. Rokyta, B. Kuzmanov, M. Jakl, M. Poloczek, J. Kaňovský, I. Bernat, O. Hlinomaz, J. Bělohlávek, A. Král, V. Mrázek, V. Grigorov, S. Djambazov, R. Petr, J. Knot, D. Bílková, M. Fischerová, K. Vondrák,...

. 2012 ; 33 (1) : 86-95.

Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, multicentrická studie, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc12022251

AIMS: The current guidelines recommend reperfusion therapy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with ST-segment elevation or left bundle branch block (LBBB). Surprisingly, the right bundle branch block (RBBB) is not listed as an indication for reperfusion therapy. This study analysed patients with AMI presenting with RBBB [with or without left anterior hemiblock (LAH) or left posterior hemiblock (LPH)] and compared them with those presenting with LBBB or with other electrocardiographic (ECG) patterns. The aim was to describe angiographic patterns and primary angioplasty use in AMI patients with RBBB. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cohort of 6742 patients with AMI admitted to eight participating hospitals was analysed. Baseline clinical characteristics, ECG patterns, coronary angiographic, and echocardiographic data were correlated with the reperfusion therapies used and with in-hospital outcomes. Right bundle branch block was present in 6.3% of AMI patients: 2.8% had RBBB alone, 3.2% had RBBB + LAH, and 0.3% had RBBB + LPH. TIMI flow 0 in the infarct-related artery was present in 51.7% of RBBB patients vs. 39.4% of LBBB patients (P = 0.023). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 80.1% of RBBB patients vs. 68.3% of LBBB patients (P< 0.001). In-hospital mortality of RBBB patients was similar to LBBB (14.3 vs. 13.1%, P = 0.661). Patients with new or presumably new blocks had the highest (LBBB 15.8% and RBBB 15.4%) incidence of cardiogenic shock from all ECG subgroups. Percutaneous coronary intervention was done more frequently (84.8%) in patients with new or presumably new RBBB when compared with other patients with blocks (old RBBB 66.0%, old LBBB 62.3%, new or presumably new LBBB 73.0%). In-hospital mortality was highest (18.8%) among patients presenting with new or presumably new RBBB, followed by new or presumably new LBBB (13.2%), old LBBB (10.1%), and old RBBB (6.4%). Among 35 patients with acute left main coronary artery occlusion, 26% presented with RBBB (mostly with LAH) on the admission ECG. CONCLUSION: Acute myocardial infarction with RBBB is frequently caused by the complete occlusion of the infarct-related artery and is more frequently treated with primary PCI when compared with AMI + LBBB. In-hospital mortality of patients with AMI and RBBB is highest from all ECG presentations of AMI. Restoration of coronary flow by primary PCI may lead to resolution of the conduction delay on the discharge ECG. Right bundle branch block should strongly be considered for listing in future guidelines as a standard indication for reperfusion therapy, in the same way as LBBB.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc12022251
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20221005154703.0
007      
ta
008      
120806s2012 xxk f 000 0#eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr291 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)21890488
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Widimský, Petr, $d 1954- $7 jn20000402682 $u Cardiology Department, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Srobarova 50, Prague 10, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction with right bundle branch block: should new onset right bundle branch block be added to future guidelines as an indication for reperfusion therapy? / $c P. Widimský, F. Roháč, J. Stásek, P. Kala, R. Rokyta, B. Kuzmanov, M. Jakl, M. Poloczek, J. Kaňovský, I. Bernat, O. Hlinomaz, J. Bělohlávek, A. Král, V. Mrázek, V. Grigorov, S. Djambazov, R. Petr, J. Knot, D. Bílková, M. Fischerová, K. Vondrák, M. Malý, A. Lorencová
520    9_
$a AIMS: The current guidelines recommend reperfusion therapy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with ST-segment elevation or left bundle branch block (LBBB). Surprisingly, the right bundle branch block (RBBB) is not listed as an indication for reperfusion therapy. This study analysed patients with AMI presenting with RBBB [with or without left anterior hemiblock (LAH) or left posterior hemiblock (LPH)] and compared them with those presenting with LBBB or with other electrocardiographic (ECG) patterns. The aim was to describe angiographic patterns and primary angioplasty use in AMI patients with RBBB. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cohort of 6742 patients with AMI admitted to eight participating hospitals was analysed. Baseline clinical characteristics, ECG patterns, coronary angiographic, and echocardiographic data were correlated with the reperfusion therapies used and with in-hospital outcomes. Right bundle branch block was present in 6.3% of AMI patients: 2.8% had RBBB alone, 3.2% had RBBB + LAH, and 0.3% had RBBB + LPH. TIMI flow 0 in the infarct-related artery was present in 51.7% of RBBB patients vs. 39.4% of LBBB patients (P = 0.023). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 80.1% of RBBB patients vs. 68.3% of LBBB patients (P< 0.001). In-hospital mortality of RBBB patients was similar to LBBB (14.3 vs. 13.1%, P = 0.661). Patients with new or presumably new blocks had the highest (LBBB 15.8% and RBBB 15.4%) incidence of cardiogenic shock from all ECG subgroups. Percutaneous coronary intervention was done more frequently (84.8%) in patients with new or presumably new RBBB when compared with other patients with blocks (old RBBB 66.0%, old LBBB 62.3%, new or presumably new LBBB 73.0%). In-hospital mortality was highest (18.8%) among patients presenting with new or presumably new RBBB, followed by new or presumably new LBBB (13.2%), old LBBB (10.1%), and old RBBB (6.4%). Among 35 patients with acute left main coronary artery occlusion, 26% presented with RBBB (mostly with LAH) on the admission ECG. CONCLUSION: Acute myocardial infarction with RBBB is frequently caused by the complete occlusion of the infarct-related artery and is more frequently treated with primary PCI when compared with AMI + LBBB. In-hospital mortality of patients with AMI and RBBB is highest from all ECG presentations of AMI. Restoration of coronary flow by primary PCI may lead to resolution of the conduction delay on the discharge ECG. Right bundle branch block should strongly be considered for listing in future guidelines as a standard indication for reperfusion therapy, in the same way as LBBB.
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a balónková koronární angioplastika $x metody $7 D015906
650    _2
$a blokáda Tawarova raménka $x komplikace $7 D002037
650    _2
$a koronární okluze $x terapie $7 D054059
650    _2
$a elektrokardiografie $7 D004562
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a mortalita v nemocnicích $7 D017052
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a dlouhověkost $7 D008136
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a infarkt myokardu $x komplikace $x terapie $7 D009203
650    _2
$a reperfuze myokardu $x metody $7 D015425
650    _2
$a směrnice pro lékařskou praxi jako téma $7 D017410
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Roháč, Filip $7 xx0106874 $u Cardiology Department, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Srobarova 50, Prague 10, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Šťásek, Josef, $d 1955- $7 xx0063485 $u Faculty of Medicine Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kala, Petr, $d 1965- $7 xx0043092 $u Medical Faculty, Masaryk University and University Hospital Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Rokyta, Richard, $d 1965- $7 nlk20050170777 $u Faculty of Medicine Plzen, Charles University Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kuzmanov, Boyko $u Bulgarian Cardiology Institute, Pleven, Bulgaria
700    1_
$a Jakl, Martin $7 xx0135493 $u Faculty of Medicine Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Poloczek, Martin $7 xx0101387 $u Medical Faculty, Masaryk University and University Hospital Brno, Czech Republic
700    1#
$a Kaňovský, Jan. $7 xx0211167 $u Medical Faculty, Masaryk University and University Hospital Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Bernat, Ivo, $d 1960- $7 xx0070523 $u Faculty of Medicine Plzen, Charles University Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Hlinomaz, Ota, $d 1964- $7 xx0074049 $u University Hospital St Anne, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Bělohlávek, Jan, $d 1971- $7 xx0077681 $u First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Král, Aleš $7 xx0210947 $u First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Mrázek, Vratislav, $d 1965- $7 xx0060129 $u First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Grigorov, Vladimir $u Cardiac Center Johanesbourgh, South Africa
700    1_
$a Djambazov, Slaveyko $u Bulgarian Cardiology Institute, Pleven, Bulgaria
700    1_
$a Petr, Róbert $7 xx0111623 $u Cardiology Department, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Srobarova 50, Prague 10, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Knot, Jiří $7 xx0210890 $u Cardiology Department, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Srobarova 50, Prague 10, Czech Republic
700    1#
$a Mocová, Danuše. $7 xx0193836 $u Cardiology Department, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Srobarova 50, Prague 10, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Fischerová, Michaela $7 _AN083012 $u Cardiology Department, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Srobarova 50, Prague 10, Czech Republic
700    1#
$a Vondrák, Karel. $7 xx0260300 $u Cardiology Department, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Srobarova 50, Prague 10, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Malý, Marek $7 jn20001103265 $u National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Lorencová, Alena $u Cardiology Department, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Srobarova 50, Prague 10, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00009622 $t European heart journal $x 1522-9645 $g Roč. 33, č. 1 (2012), s. 86-95
856    41
$u https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249219/ $y plný text volně přístupný
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y m $z 0
990    __
$a 20120806 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20221005154658 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 944164 $s 779548
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2012 $b 33 $c 1 $d 86-95 $i 1522-9645 $m European heart journal $n Eur Heart J $x MED00009622
LZP    __
$b NLK111 $a Pubmed-20120806/12/01

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace