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 was not a significant predictor of incident HF in m

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32 n of a proximal LAD septal perforator causes RBBB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

47 patients, and 15 patients had an incomplete RBBB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

60 Pure RBBB and bifascicular blocks are associated with S waves

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

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

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

64 The RBBB morphologies in each group were compared.

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

66 4 anterior, 5 posterior) developed a typical RBBB pattern.

67 L and the remaining 4 demonstrated a typical RBBB.

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

69 ter-defibrillators in left BBB compared with RBBB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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