BackgroundPatients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and bundle-branch block have poor prognoses. The new European Society of Cardiology guideline suggests a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy when persistent ischemic symptoms occur in patients with persistent ischemic symptoms and right bundle-branch block (RBBB), but the level of evidence is not high. In fact, the presence of RBBB may lead to the misdiagnosis of transmural ischemia and mask the early diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Moreover, new-onset RBBB is occasionally caused by AMI. Our study aims to investigate the prognostic value of new-onset RBBB in AMI.Methods and ResultsWe conducted a meta-analysis of studies to evaluate the prognostic value of RBBB in AMI patients. Of 914 primary records, five studies and 874 MI patients were included for meta-analysis. Compared with previous RBBB, AMI patients with new-onset RBBB had a higher risk of long-term mortality (RR, 1.66, 95% CI [1.31–2.09], I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.000, n = 2), ventricular arrhythmia (RR, 4.86, 95% CI [2.10–11.27], I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.000, n = 3), and cardiogenic shock (RR, 2.76, 95% CI [1.66–4.59], I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.000, n = 3), but a lower risk of heart failure (RR, 0.66, 95% CI [0.52–0.85], I2 = 2.50%, p = 0.001, n = 4). Compared with AMI patients with new-onset permanent RBBB, patients with new-onset transient RBBB had a lower risk of short-term mortality (RR, 0.20, 95% CI [0.11–0.37], I2 = 44.1%, p = 0.000, n = 4).ConclusionNew-onset RBBB is likely to increase long-term mortality, ventricular arrhythmia, and cardiogenic shock, but not heart failure in AMI patients. AMI patients with new-onset transient RBBB have a lower risk of short-term mortality than those with new-onset permanent RBBB. Revascularization therapies should be considered when persistent ischemic symptoms occur in patients with RBBB, especially new-onset RBBB.

No abstract