Clinical outcomes of patients with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation: can we safely transplant patients with impaired ejection fraction?

Experience with autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT) in patients with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or heart failure (HF) is limited. We identified 308 consecutive patients who underwent ABMT for Hodgkin's or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma at our institution (1996-2003). Patient characteristics, clinical course and overall survival were compared between patients with preserved ( > or = 50%) or impaired ( < 50%) LVEF. Of the 308 patients identified, 20 had baseline impaired LVEF (four with LVEF < or = 40%, all NYHA class I-II HF). None of the patients with post-ABMT echocardiogram had worsened LVEF (n = 7). Among the 20 patients with impaired LVEF, four patients had reversible cardiac complications post-ABMT (including worsening HF). The two deaths observed in the impaired LVEF group were both due to noncardiac causes. The 5-year survival was similar between patients with preserved and impaired LVEF (P = 0.43). Careful selection of patients with stable, mild-to-moderate HF and impaired LVEF for ABMT can achieve similar long-term survival. As medical care for HF and ABMT improves, the exclusion criteria for ABMT with regard to HF and impaired LVEF should be re-examined.     

Is there an association between left bundle branch block and coronary slow flow in patients with normal coronary arteries?

Slow flow in angiographically normal coronary arteries is not a rarely seen problem. It is unknown whether it is related with conduction disorders. In this study we investigated the frequency of conduction disorders in patients with normal coronary artery and slow flow. The study included 36 (22 female; mean age 63 +/-11 years) patients who have normal coronary arteries and slow flow in coronary angiography. Patients' 12-lead electrocardiograms were analyzed for the presence of bundle branch block. Twenty-two of 36 patients (61%) demonstrated left bundle branch block. Twelve patients (33%) had normal intraventricular conduction. Only 2 of 36 patients (6%) had right bundle branch block. Microvascular disease has been implicated in coronary slow flow. However, according to the results of this study there is a close association between especially left bundle branch block and coronary slow flow. A causal relation should be sought between them with future studies.     

Detection of left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis in patients with left bundle branch block: exercise,adenosine or dobutamine imaging?

Objectives. This study sought to assess the diagnostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging during exercise and pharmacologic stress in patients with left bundle branch block.Backgroud. Patients with left bundle branch block often have septal perfusion defects during exercise perfusion tomography that mimic defects caused by coronary artery disease. These defects appear to be less frequent during pharmacologic stress using adenosine or dipyridamole. Data are scanty on the value of dobutamine tomography in these patients.Methods. We studied 383 consecutive patients with left bundle branch block referred for perfusion scintigraphy over a 5-year span. Perfusion tomography was performed in conjunction with exercise in 206 patients, adenosine in 127 and dobutamine in 50. Coronary angiography was performed within 1 month of the nuclear study in 77, 50 and 27 patients, respectively.Results. Exercise, adenosine and dobutamine tomography had similar sensitivity and specificity for the detection of >50% stenosis in the left circumflex (74% and 96%; 50% and 100%; 63% and 91%, respectively) and right coronary arteries (96% and 86%; 82% and 91%; 79% and 100%, respectively) and similar sensitivity for left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis (88%, 79% and 100%, respectively). However, the false-positive rate for septal defects was higher by exercise tomography (26 [46%] of 57) than by pharmacologic methods (5 [10%] of 48, p < 0.001), and there was no significant difference between adenosine (4 [11%] of 35) and dobutamine (1 [8%] of 13, p = 0.7). The specificity and predictive value of a positive test response for left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis were 36% and 51% for exercise compared with 81% and 85% for adenosine (p ≤ 0.001) and 80% and 90% for dobutamine (p < 0.05), respectively.Conclusions. In patients with left bundle branch block, pharmacologic stress is more specific than exercise tomography in the diagnosis of left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. Dobutamine and adenosine tomography appear to be equally specific in these patients.     

Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes in heart failure by echocardiography, radionuclide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance; are they interchangeable?

AIMS: To prospectively compare the agreement of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by M-mode echocardiography (echo), 2D echo, radionuclide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance performed in patients with chronic stable heart failure. It is important to know whether the results of each technique are interchangable, and thereby how the results of large studies in heart failure utilizing one technique can be applied using another. Some studies have compared cardiovascular magnetic resonance with echo or radionuclude ventriculography but few contain patients with heart failure and none have compared these techniques with the current fast breath-hold acquisition cardiovascular magnetic resonance. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty two patients with chronic stable heart failure taking part in the CHRISTMAS Study, underwent M-mode echo, 2D echo, radionuclude ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance within 4 weeks. The scans were analysed independently in blinded fashion by a single investigator at three core laboratories. Of the echocardiograms, 86% had sufficient image quality to obtain left ventricular ejection fraction by M-mode method, but only 69% by 2D Simpson's biplane analysis. All 52 patients tolerated the radionuclude ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance, and all these scans were analysable. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction by M-mode cube method was 39+/-16% and 29+/-15% by Teichholz M-mode method. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction by 2D echo Simpson's biplane was 31+/-10%, by radionuclude ventriculography was 24+/-9% and by cardiovascular magnetic resonance was 30+/-11. All the mean left ventricular ejection fractions by each technique were significantly different from all other techniques (P<0.001), except for cardiovascular magnetic resonance ejection fraction and 2D echo ejection fraction by Simpson's rule (P=0.23). The Bland-Altman limits of agreement encompassing four standard deviations was widest for both cardiovascular magnetic resonance vs cube M-mode echo and cardiovascular magnetic resonance vs Teichholz M-mode echo at 66% each, and was 58% for radionuclude ventriculography vs cube M-mode echo, 44% for cardiovascular magnetic resonance vs Simpson's 2D echo, 39% for radionuclide ventriculography vs Simpson's 2D echo, and smallest at 31% for cardiovascular magnetic resonance-radionuclide ventriculography. Similarly, the end-diastolic volume and end-systolic volume by 2D echo and cardiovascular magnetic resonance revealed wide limits of agreement (52 ml to 216 ml and 11 ml to 188 ml, respectively). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that ejection fraction measurements by various techniques are not interchangeable. The conclusions and recommendations of research studies in heart failure should therefore be interpreted in the context of locally available techniques. In addition, there are very wide variances in volumes and ejection fraction between techniques, which are most marked in comparisons using echocardiography. This suggests that cardiovascular magnetic resonance is the preferred technique for volume and ejection fraction estimation in heart failure patients, because of its 3D approach for non-symmetric ventricles and superior image quality.     

Reservations about the Selvester QRS score in left bundle branch block — Experience in patients with transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background

The Selvester QRS score (S-score) estimates myocardial scar using electrocardiographic criteria. We evaluated the S-score for left bundle branch block (LBBB).

Epidemiological and evolutionary characteristics of heart failure in patients with left bundle branch block – A Moroccan center-based study

Background

In patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block (LBBB) seems to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine the in-hospital outcome of congestive heart failure patients with LBBB versus those without.

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational study at the Department of Intensive Care and Rhythmology at the Mohammed V Military Hospital of Rabat, where 330 patients were admitted for heart failure between January 2008 and September 2012. Screening out patients with missing data yielded a cohort of 274 patients. Among the 274 patients, only 110 had LBBB and a left ventricular ejection fraction lower than 50%. We randomly selected a subset of 110 patients diagnosed as non-LBBB to ensure a significant statistical comparison between LBBB and non-LBBB patients. We therefore considered two groups in our analysis: 110 heart failure (HF) patients with LBBB and 110 HF patients without LBBB. Patients with incomplete records were excluded.

Results

Male gender was dominant in both groups (82.7% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.005). Patients with LBBB had a higher prevalence of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (39.1% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.001); and a higher prevalence of previous hospitalization for heart failure (64.5% vs. 23.3%, p < 0.001). The left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in the group with LBBB (25.49% vs. 39.53%, p < 0.001). Age, cardiovascular risk factors, rhythmic and thromboembolic complications did not significantly differ. In patients with LBBB, 61.8% received cardiac resynchronization therapy performed both during the index hospital stay (50.9%) and previously (10.9%). Hospital outcome was marked by 20 in-hospital deaths in the group with LBBB and eight deaths in the group without LBBB (p = 0.008).

Conclusion

Our analysis emphasizes increased in-hospital mortality and higher disease severity, over a short period of stay, in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.     

Is the left bundle branch pacing a choice to conquer the right bundle branch block?—A case report

In patients with preserved ejection fraction or right bundle branch block (RBBB) pattern requiring a high percentage of ventricular pacing, His‐bundle pacing (HBP) might be an alternative to biventricular pacing, although the high threshold occasionally occurs. We provided a case of the intrinsic RBBB correction by capturing intra‐Hisian left bundle branch (LBB) or distal His‐bundle with different output settings. LBB pacing had the advantage of a much lower threshold while remained most synchrony as HBP. LBB pacing might be a promisingly safe and effective procedure for patients with high‐grade atrioventricular (AV) block and RBBB pattern.     

A retrospective study: do patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤50% benefit from heart valve surgery?

BackgroundLeft ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is an indicator of heart failure, and it is controversial whether patients with reduced preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction can benefit from heart valve surgery. We aimed to assess the differences in clinical characteristics after surgery in patients with different grades of reduced preoperative LVEF to guide clinical management.MethodsA total of 100 heart valve disease patients with low LVEF (≤50%) who had undergone valve surgery in the Department of Cardiology. The patients were divided into three groups according to their LVEF measured by echocardiography before surgery, with LVEF ≤40% as group A, 40%< LVEF ≤45% as group B, and 45%< LVEF ≤50% as group C. Clinical characteristics such as postoperative LVEF values, oxygenation index, liver function and inflammatory index, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) utilization rate, and mortality were compared among the three groups of patients.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the preoperative baseline data between the three groups of patients (P>0.05). The clinical outcomes of patients in group A (n=28) were similar to those of patients in groups B (n=39) and C (n=33) (P>0.05). The vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS), postoperative ventilator use time, length of stay in the care unit, IABP use rate, and mortality rate on the first postoperative day were higher in group A. By comparing the preoperative and postoperative (within 48 hours and 3 months after surgery) cardiac echocardiograms of the three groups, we learned that LVEF increased, LV end-systolic internal diameter and LV end-diastolic internal diameter decreased, and ventricular remodeling improved after surgery compared with the preoperative period (P<0.05). The postoperative improvement was more obvious in group A than in groups B and C. Three months after surgery, LVEF increased to 55%, the LV end-systolic internal diameter decreased to 39 mm, and the LV end-diastolic internal diameter decreased to about 55 mm in each group (P>0.05).ConclusionsPatients with heart valve disease and low LVEF should be actively treated with heart valve surgery, which can significantly improve the patient’s left ventricular reverse remodeling and cardiac function, thereby facilitating survival.