P309Aortic valve implantation-induced bundle branch block as a framework towards a more uniform electrocardiographic definition of left bundle branch block
Authors: Calle S , Coeman M , Philipsen T , Kayaert P , Gheeraert P , Timmermans F , De Pooter J 
Published: June 2020

INTRODUCTION

The electrocardiographic (ECG) pattern of true left bundle branch block (LBBB) has not been fully clarified and various definitions of LBBB exist. New-onset LBBB after transcatheter (TAVR) or surgical (SAVR) aortic valve replacement implies a proximal pathogenesis of LBBB and thus may provide a reference to characterize and define true LBBB.

PURPOSE

This study compares ECG characteristics in aortic valve implantation-induced LBBB (AVI-LBBB) to a non-procedural-induced LBBB control group (co-LBBB) in order to set a more homogenous definition for true LBBB.

METHODS

The study enrolled all patients with new-onset TAVR- and SAVR-induced LBBB between 2013 and 2019. AVI-LBBB was defined as new-onset persistent LBBB occurring within 24h after TAVR or SAVR. Patients were matched for age, sex, ischemic heart disease and left ventricular systolic function to randomly selected co-LBBB patients in a 1:2 ratio. For inclusion in both groups, a non-strict LBBB definition was used (QRSD ≥120ms, QS or rS in lead V1, absence of Q wave in leads V5-6). ECG characteristics were digitally analysed by the MUSE algorithm and confirmed by two experts. All ECG recordings were classified according to 4 different LBBB definitions: MADIT, European Society of Cardiology (ESC), Strauss and American Heart Association (AHA).

RESULTS

59 patients with AVI-LBBB (34 TAVR, 25 SAVR, median age 82 years, 42% male) were compared to 118 matched co-LBBB patients.

All patients with AVI-LBBB presented with QRS notching/slurring in the lateral leads, whereas this was present in only 85% of the co-LBBB group (p = 0.001). QRS duration (148ms vs 145ms, p = 0.074) and R wave peak time (58ms vs 62ms, p = 0.065) were not significantly different among both groups. AVI-LBBB was characterized by a more rightward QRS axis (-15° vs -30°, p = 0.013). When comparing AVI-LBBB to LBBB controls with QRS notching/slurring, a comparable QRS axis was observed.

Almost all AVI-LBBB patients met the MADIT (98%), ESC (100%) and Strauss (95%) definition. Only 18% of patients met the AHA definition, because of the low combined presence of QRS notching/slurring in all 4 lateral leads (54%) and because only 27% of patients had an R wave peak time &gt;60ms in both leads V5-6.

In the co-LBBB group, adherence to the different definitions was significantly lower compared to the AVI-LBBB group: MADIT 86% (p = 0.007), ESC 85% (p = 0.001), Strauss 68% (p &lt; 0.001) and AHA 7% (p = 0.035). Lower presence of lateral notching/slurring and more patients with smaller QRS duration (QRS duration ≥130ms, 86% vs 98%, p = 0.007) in the co-LBBB group explain these results.

CONCLUSIONS

Discordance exists between various definitions in scoring AVI-LBBB. Our data show that presence of QRS notching/slurring in the lateral leads is a crucial feature of proximal LBBB, rather than QRS duration and R wave peak time. The AVI-LBBB population provides a framework towards a more uniform definition and criteria for assessing true, proximal LBBB.