Coronary arteriographic findings in symptomatic right bundle branch block

Haft, Jacob I.; DeMalo, Samuel J.; Bartoszyk, Orest B.

doi:10.1016/0002-9149(84)90401-6

Cited by 13 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Froelicher et al, 32 using coronary angiography, examined 75 asymptomatic male aircrew members with bundle-branch block and found significant stenoses in 16 (22%) of the men but no causal correlation to the length of the left main coronary artery and numbers of septal perforators in left bundle-branch block, as stated earlier in a study by Herbert. 33 Patients with chest pain and right bundle-branch block were angiographically studied by Haft et al, 34 and no difference in severity or extension in coronary artery disease was seen compared with control subjects. From the Coronary Artery Surgery Study, 16 with Ͼ15 000 patients Ischemic heart disease 8 (29) 3 (38) 11 (31) 142 (27) Myocardial infarction 8 (29) 2 (25) 10 (28) 111 (21) Congestive heart failure 10 (36) † 3 (38) 13 (36) † 72 (14) RBBB indicates right bundle-branch block; LBBB, left bundle-branch block; BBB, all bundle-branch block; and No BBB, no bundle-branch block.…”

Section: Relationship With Coronary Heart Diseasementioning

confidence: 99%

Bundle-Branch Block in a General Male Population

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-Interest in bundle-branch block has focused primarily on its role as a predictor of mortality and coexisting cardiovascular diseases. Previous studies of prevalence, correlation to cardiovascular disease, and mortality have produced conflicting results. Methods and Results-We studied a random-sampled population of 855 men who were 50 years old in 1963 and followed them up for 30 years with repeated examinations. Men who developed bundle-branch block were studied with regard to cumulative incidence, relationship with cardiovascular disease/risk factors, and survival. The prevalence of bundle-branch block increases from 1% at age 50 years to 17% at age 80 years, resulting in a cumulative incidence of 18%. No significant relationship with ischemic heart disease or mortality was found. Men who would develop bundle-branch block had a bigger heart volume at age 50 years and developed diabetes mellitus and congestive heart disease during follow-up more often than control subjects. Conclusions-Bundle-branch block correlates strongly to age and is common in elderly men. Our results support the theory that bundle-branch block is a marker of a slowly progressing degenerative disease that also affects the myocardium.(Circulation. 1998;98:2494-2500.)

show abstract

Section: Relationship With Coronary Heart Diseasementioning

confidence: 99%

Bundle-Branch Block in a General Male Population

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Right bundle‐branch block in coronary artery disease: a hemodynamic and angiographic study

Dabizzi

Aiazzi

Barletta

et al. 1988

Clinical Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary: Thirty-four patients with right bundle-branch block (RBBB) and coronary artery disease (CAD) (RBBB was not pre-existent to clinical development of CAD) and 52 consecutive CAD patients without conduction disturbances were studied and compared to verify whether the presence of RBBB implies more severe and extensive left ventricular myocardial damage as well as more severe CAD. The two groups did not differ either in age or in New York Heart Association functional class. The incidence or location of previous myocardial infarction (MI) was not different in the two groups. No significant differences were found in left ventricular volumes or ejection fraction. Higher end-diastolic left ventricular pressure and more severe and diffuse left ventricular wall asynergy were present in RBBB patients. At coronary axteriography, more severe involvement of the right coronary artery in CAD patients without conduction disturbances was the only significant finding. The group of patients with CAD and RBBB without MI showed significantly less involvement of the left anterior descending coronary artery and significantly more severe damage of the inferior wall of the left ventricle than the group with CAD without RBBB and MI. Patients with inferior wall MI and RBBB had more severe asynergy of the posterobasal region of the left ventricle than did patients with inferior wall MI without RBBB. The group of patients with anterior wall MI and RBBB had a higher left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, a lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and a greater extent of myocardial damage compared to similar patients of the control group. The groups with MI and RBBB had the same Gensini's score as similar groups without RBBB. The hemodynamic, angiographic, and ventriculographic findings in 14 of the 34 RBBB patients who had also presented an abnormal QRS frontal axis deviation showed no significant differences in comparison both with the CAD control group and the remaining RBBB patients with normal QRS frontal axis. These data support the hypothesis that conduction defects and diffuse left ventricular damage do not emanate from anatomical coronary lesions.

show abstract