Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Clinical implications of electrocardiographic bundle branch block in primary care

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{45ab7a6be4314b6da71339e0c1f79e4f,
title = "Clinical implications of electrocardiographic bundle branch block in primary care",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: Electrocardiographic bundle branch block (BBB) is common but the prognostic implications in primary care are unclear. We sought to investigate the relationship between electrocardiographic BBB subtypes and the risk of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in a primary care population free of major CV disease.METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of primary care patients referred for electrocardiogram (ECG) recording between 2001 and 2011. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) as well as absolute risks of CV outcomes based on various BBB subtypes.RESULTS: We included 202 268 individuals with a median follow-up period of 7.8 years (Inter-quartile range [IQR] 4.9-10.6). Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was associated with heart failure (HF) in both men (HR 3.96, 95{\%} CI 3.30 to 4.76) and women (HR 2.51, 95{\%} CI 2.15 to 2.94) and with CV death in men (HR 1.80, 95{\%} CI 1.38 to 2.35). Right bundle branch block (RBBB) was associated with pacemaker implantation in both men (HR 3.26, 95{\%} CI 2.74 to 3.89) and women (HR 3.69, 95{\%} CI 2.91 to 4.67), HF in both sexes and weakly associated with CV death in men. Regarding LBBB, we found an increasing hazard of HF with increasing QRS-interval duration (HR 1.25, 95{\%} CI 1.11 to 1.42 per 10 ms increase in men and HR 1.23, 95{\%} CI 1.08 to 1.40 per 10 ms increase in women). Absolute 10-year risk predictions across age-specific and sex-specific subgroups revealed clinically relevant differences between having various BBB subtypes.CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic findings of BBB subtypes in primary care patients without major CV disease should be considered warnings of future HF and pacemaker implantation.",
author = "Rasmussen, {Peter Vibe} and Skov, {Morten Wagner} and Jonas Ghouse and Adrian Pietersen and Hansen, {Steen M{\o}ller} and Christian Torp-Pedersen and Lars K{\o}ber and Stig Hauns{\o} and Olesen, {Morten Salling} and Svendsen, {Jesper Hastrup} and Jacob Melgaard and Claus Graff and Holst, {Anders Gaardsdal} and Nielsen, {Jonas Bille}",
note = "{\circledC} Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314295",
language = "English",
volume = "105",
pages = "1160--1167",
journal = "Heart",
issn = "1355-6037",
publisher = "B M J Group",
number = "15",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical implications of electrocardiographic bundle branch block in primary care

AU - Rasmussen, Peter Vibe

AU - Skov, Morten Wagner

AU - Ghouse, Jonas

AU - Pietersen, Adrian

AU - Hansen, Steen Møller

AU - Torp-Pedersen, Christian

AU - Køber, Lars

AU - Haunsø, Stig

AU - Olesen, Morten Salling

AU - Svendsen, Jesper Hastrup

AU - Melgaard, Jacob

AU - Graff, Claus

AU - Holst, Anders Gaardsdal

AU - Nielsen, Jonas Bille

N1 - © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

PY - 2019/8

Y1 - 2019/8

N2 - OBJECTIVES: Electrocardiographic bundle branch block (BBB) is common but the prognostic implications in primary care are unclear. We sought to investigate the relationship between electrocardiographic BBB subtypes and the risk of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in a primary care population free of major CV disease.METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of primary care patients referred for electrocardiogram (ECG) recording between 2001 and 2011. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) as well as absolute risks of CV outcomes based on various BBB subtypes.RESULTS: We included 202 268 individuals with a median follow-up period of 7.8 years (Inter-quartile range [IQR] 4.9-10.6). Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was associated with heart failure (HF) in both men (HR 3.96, 95% CI 3.30 to 4.76) and women (HR 2.51, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.94) and with CV death in men (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.35). Right bundle branch block (RBBB) was associated with pacemaker implantation in both men (HR 3.26, 95% CI 2.74 to 3.89) and women (HR 3.69, 95% CI 2.91 to 4.67), HF in both sexes and weakly associated with CV death in men. Regarding LBBB, we found an increasing hazard of HF with increasing QRS-interval duration (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42 per 10 ms increase in men and HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.40 per 10 ms increase in women). Absolute 10-year risk predictions across age-specific and sex-specific subgroups revealed clinically relevant differences between having various BBB subtypes.CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic findings of BBB subtypes in primary care patients without major CV disease should be considered warnings of future HF and pacemaker implantation.

AB - OBJECTIVES: Electrocardiographic bundle branch block (BBB) is common but the prognostic implications in primary care are unclear. We sought to investigate the relationship between electrocardiographic BBB subtypes and the risk of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in a primary care population free of major CV disease.METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of primary care patients referred for electrocardiogram (ECG) recording between 2001 and 2011. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) as well as absolute risks of CV outcomes based on various BBB subtypes.RESULTS: We included 202 268 individuals with a median follow-up period of 7.8 years (Inter-quartile range [IQR] 4.9-10.6). Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was associated with heart failure (HF) in both men (HR 3.96, 95% CI 3.30 to 4.76) and women (HR 2.51, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.94) and with CV death in men (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.35). Right bundle branch block (RBBB) was associated with pacemaker implantation in both men (HR 3.26, 95% CI 2.74 to 3.89) and women (HR 3.69, 95% CI 2.91 to 4.67), HF in both sexes and weakly associated with CV death in men. Regarding LBBB, we found an increasing hazard of HF with increasing QRS-interval duration (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42 per 10 ms increase in men and HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.40 per 10 ms increase in women). Absolute 10-year risk predictions across age-specific and sex-specific subgroups revealed clinically relevant differences between having various BBB subtypes.CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic findings of BBB subtypes in primary care patients without major CV disease should be considered warnings of future HF and pacemaker implantation.

U2 - 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314295

DO - 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314295

M3 - Journal article

VL - 105

SP - 1160

EP - 1167

JO - Heart

JF - Heart

SN - 1355-6037

IS - 15

ER -

ID: 57661204