ライフサイエンスコーパス: RBBB

1 RBBB (1-year HR, 1.44; 3-year HR, 1.37; P<0.001) and isc

2 RBBB and ischemic cardiomyopathy together had twice the

3 RBBB is a risk factor for DH-AVB but has poor sensitivit

4 RBBB was not a significant predictor of incident HF in m

5 n patients with LV ejection fraction </=35%, RBBB is associated with significantly larger scar size t

6 LV) apical septal and lateral pacing, and 47 RBBB-type VTs (QRS-RVA) were localized to the septal or

7 We hypothesized that a RBBB pattern with absent S waves in leads I and aVL will

8 s noted in 5 patients were associated with a RBBB VT origin.

9 Aggregating RBBB and IVCD into a single "non-LBBB" category when sel

10 orphology EIVA can be dismissed, and not all RBBB-morphology EIVA is high risk.

11 in a multivariable Cox regression analysis, RBBB still revealed a negative impact on 30-day all-caus

12 was observed in left bundle branch block and RBBB (vs.

13 Left bundle branch block and RBBB induced similar QRS widening, and LV function (ejec

14 BBB, intraventricular conduction defect, and RBBB combined with left anterior fascicular block are st

15 e studied 7 patients with RV dysfunction and RBBB, using a predefined pacing protocol.

16 CD-only therapy among patients with NICD and RBBB.

17 atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, any RBBB-morphology EIVA was associated with death (hazard r

18 l or Undetermined, all patients with RBBB as RBBB, whereas all patients with spontaneous and ajmaline

19 e LBB block pattern, 7 developed an atypical RBBB pattern with absent S waves in leads I and aVL and

20 F-VT was more often associated with atypical RBBB-like V1 morphology (odds ratio, 5.1; P=0.004), posi

21 Among 112 patients with baseline RBBB, 34.8% developed CHB post-operatively.

22 rt, LV ejection fraction was similar between RBBB and LBBB patients (24.9% vs. 25.0%; p = 0.98); howe

23 rease the risk of right bundle branch block (RBBB) (pooled odds ratio [OR]: 56.3; 95% CI: 11.6 to 273

24 dia with aberrant right bundle branch block (RBBB) and left anterior hemiblock (LAHB).

25 gnostic impact of right bundle branch block (RBBB) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) in patients wi

26 catheter-induced right bundle-branch block (RBBB) develops in patients with baseline left bundle-bra

27 and prognosis of right bundle branch block (RBBB) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (

28 t in 65 patients, right bundle branch block (RBBB) in 48 patients, and nonspecific intraventricular c

29 lay (NICD) versus right bundle branch block (RBBB) in patients eligible for implantation with a CRT w

30 e hypothesis that right bundle branch block (RBBB) patients have larger scar size than left bundle br

31 l 4 patients with right bundle-branch block (RBBB) VT.

32 Right bundle-branch block (RBBB) was present in 11 patients (22%).

33 k, 1.1% developed right bundle branch block (RBBB), and 0.6% had complete heart block (CHB) after mye

34 blems may include right bundle-branch block (RBBB), volume loading, and chamber enlargement.

35 ardia (VT) with a right bundle-branch block (RBBB)-type pattern and an R-S ratio >1 in lead V1 is dif

36 18 patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB).

37 subgroups such as right bundle-branch block (RBBB).

38 the presence of a right bundle-branch block (RBBB).

39 hypertension and right bundle branch block (RBBB).

40 (RNDPV) was an independent predictor in both RBBB and LBBB and, in addition, in LBBB, QRS/STT angle a

41 each ECG was classified as Normal, Brugada, RBBB, or Undetermined.

42 F in multivariable-adjusted risk models, but RBBB is not a significant predictor.

43 Less mechanical dyssynchrony is induced by RBBB than LBBB in failing hearts, and the corresponding

44 Thus, proximal LAD occlusions should cause RBBB, not LBBB.

45 n in a proximal LAD septal perforator caused RBBB or LBBB.

46 n of a proximal LAD septal perforator causes RBBB.

47 ity in both ARVD patients without a complete RBBB or incomplete RBBB (71% [95% confidence interval, 5

48 Among the 100 patients with ARVD, a complete RBBB was present in 17 patients, and 15 patients had an

49 n ARVD patients and controls with a complete RBBB, the only 2 parameters that differed were the preva

50 ce of no RBBB, incomplete RBBB, and complete RBBB to obtain the best diagnostic utility of the ECG.

51 In ARVD patients with complete RBBB, the most sensitive and specific parameter was an r

52 on cohort, 15 of 20 patients (75%) developed RBBB, but no patients developed LBBB.

53 absence of S waves in leads I and aVL during RBBB was 100% specific and 64% sensitive for the presenc

54 seline normal conduction, while pre-existing RBBB greatly increases the risk for CHB.

55 LPF-VT and attempt to differentiate it from RBBB and LAHB aberrancy.

56 ol for correctly differentiating LPF-VT from RBBB and LAHB aberrancy was developed.

57 ients with </=1 positive variable always had RBBB plus LAHB.

58 tients (24.9% vs. 25.0%; p = 0.98); however, RBBB patients had significantly larger scar size (24.0%

59 le outcomes in left BBB but had no impact in RBBB.

60 te this, mechanical dyssynchrony was less in RBBB (circumferential uniformity ratio estimate [CURE] i

61 ly pacing enhanced function and synchrony in RBBB as well or better than did BiV, whereas LV-only pac

62 patients, and 15 patients had an incomplete RBBB.

63 tients without a complete RBBB or incomplete RBBB (71% [95% confidence interval, 58% to 81%] and 96%

64 basis of the presence of no RBBB, incomplete RBBB, and complete RBBB to obtain the best diagnostic ut

65 tively) and in ARVD patients with incomplete RBBB (73% [95% confidence interval, 45% to 92%] and 95%

66 es with left or right bundle-branch block (L/RBBB) was investigated in a canine atrial pacing study.

67 ft, right, and indetermined-type BBBs (LBBB, RBBB, and intraventricular conduction defect, respective

68 siology Score, lactate, and troponin levels, RBBB was associated with an increased 30-day all-cause m

69 Of 1992 patients, 15 (0.75%) experienced new RBBB post-TAVR.

70 of valve oversizing among patients with new RBBB post-TAVR versus those without (17.9% versus 10.0%;

71 n applied on the basis of the presence of no RBBB, incomplete RBBB, and complete RBBB to obtain the b

72 RVOT, a phenomenon never observed in normal, RBBB, or ajmaline-negative patients.

73 RVOT location was never observed in normal, RBBB, or ajmaline-negative patients.

74 IVCD (HR, 0.59 [CrI, 0.39 to 0.89]), but not RBBB (HR 0.97 [CrI, 0.68 to 1.34]; P(interaction) <0.001

75 in 85% of ARVD/C patients in the absence of RBBB compared with none in RVOT and normal controls, res

76 Finally, no association of RBBB was found with the incidence of liver or severe ren

77 -adjusted risk model, but the combination of RBBB and left anterior fascicular block was a strong pre

78 In patients with heart failure, existence of RBBB and LBBB has influence on prognosis.

79 The prognostic impact of RBBB and LBBB on 30-day all-cause mortality was tested w

80 An ECG pattern of RBBB in lead V1 with absent S wave in leads I and aVL in

81 ess of QRS morphology) or in the presence of RBBB.

82 Sensitivity and specificity of RBBB in predicting DH-AVB was 27% and 94%, respectively.

83 Post-TAVR RBBB was defined as new-onset RBBB in the postimplantation period.

84 In the presence of LBBB or RBBB, RR intervals preceding the ADS of >345 ms at basel

85 In the presence of LBBB or RBBB, VF was induced by ADS delivered at the onset of or

86 In Medicare patients, RBBB, ischemic cardiomyopathy, New York Heart Associatio

87 ients 18 years and above without preexisting RBBB or PPM who underwent TAVR at US Mayo Clinic sites a

88 Pure RBBB and bifascicular blocks are associated with S waves

89 de of dyssynchrony and impact of CRT in pure RBBB versus LBBB remains largely unknown.

90 y (CRT) in failing hearts with a pure right (RBBB) versus left bundle branch block (LBBB).

91 of LPF-VT were compared with 61 ECGs showing RBBB and LAHB.

92 ncrease in mortality was seen with post-TAVR RBBB (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.33-2.11]; P=0.69), a

93 t to characterize the incidence of post-TAVR RBBB and determine associated risks of permanent pacemak

94 Ten patients (66.7%) with post-TAVR RBBB experienced high-grade atrioventricular block and u

95 ared for patients with and without post-TAVR RBBB using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional ha

96 Although infrequent, post-TAVR RBBB was associated with elevated PPM implantation risk.

97 Post-TAVR RBBB was defined as new-onset RBBB in the postimplantati

98 s diameter, and valve oversizing), post-TAVR RBBB was significantly associated with PPM implantation

99 The RBBB morphologies in each group were compared.

100 Fifty patients developing transient RBBB pattern in lead V1 during right heart catheterizati

101 4 anterior, 5 posterior) developed a typical RBBB pattern.

102 L and the remaining 4 demonstrated a typical RBBB.

103 compared outcomes in those with NICD versus RBBB.

104 With RBBB, the lateral wall contracts early so that biventric

105 multivariable adjustment NICD compared with RBBB was associated with lower mortality at 3 years in t

106 ter-defibrillators in left BBB compared with RBBB.

107 d correspondingly less effect on hearts with RBBB than those with LBBB (i.e., 5.5 +/- 1.1% vs. 29.5 +

108 pared with ECGs of consecutive patients with RBBB and LAHB and no obvious cardiac pathology by echoca

109 Patients with RBBB and nonspecific IVCD did not differ from patients w

110 Atrioventricular pacing in patients with RBBB and RV dysfunction augments RV and systemic perform

111 as Normal or Undetermined, all patients with RBBB as RBBB, whereas all patients with spontaneous and

112 Patients with RBBB showed the highest 30-day all-cause mortality follo

113 consecutive 2253 hospitalized patients with RBBB, 34 (1.5%) had the bilateral bundle-branch delay/bl

114 ultivariable adjustment, among patients with RBBB, CRT-D was not associated with better outcomes, com

115 d location were compared among patients with RBBB, LBBB, nonspecific LV conduction delay, and QRS <12

116 Worse survival in patients with RBBB-morphology or multiple-morphology EIVA (6.9%) than

117 Those with RBBB (compared with LBBB) were more likely to have ische

118 ms and LBBB or IVCD, but not for those with RBBB.

119 , 4), compared with 268/1977 (13.6%) without RBBB.

120 Among those without RBBB, our newly proposed criterion of "prolonged S-wave