ライフサイエンスコーパス: left bundle branch block

1 udoischemic pattern (ST-segment elevation or left bundle branch block).

2 as ST-segment elevation or depression and/or left bundle-branch block).

3 l conduction system abnormalities, including left bundle branch block.

4 sensitivity and specificity in patients with left bundle branch block.

5 surgical septal myectomy, 47 (40%) developed left bundle branch block.

6 d 1,260 patients with mild heart failure and left bundle branch block.

7 th suspected AMI and ST segment elevation or left bundle branch block.

8 n 12 h of symptom onset with ST elevation or left bundle branch block.

9 scintigraphy is decreased in patients with a left bundle branch block.

10 in those with QRS width 120 to 149 ms or non-left bundle branch block.

11 se and pharmacologic stress in patients with left bundle branch block.

12 patients with heart failure (HF) and without left bundle branch block.

13 dependent predictors of new onset persistent left bundle branch block.

14 uring LVP and BiVP in the failing heart with left bundle branch block.

15 nts with or without systolic dysfunction and left bundle-branch block.

16 ny in patients with systolic dysfunction and left bundle-branch block.

17 left ventricular ejection fraction <35% and left bundle-branch block.

18 who had chronic coronary artery disease and left bundle-branch block.

19 l infarction in patients with chest pain and left bundle-branch block.

20 nosis of acute infarction in the presence of left bundle-branch block.

21 atients presenting with acute chest pain and left bundle-branch block.

22 ercent) with acute myocardial infarction had left bundle-branch block.

23 y QRS morphology into those with and without left bundle-branch block.

24 eta-blockade, and the presence of a complete left bundle-branch block.

25 results: (1) ST elevation or presumably new left bundle branch block, (2) other ECG signs indicating

26 .74, 1.44) versus 1.04 (0.78, 1.51), de novo left bundle-branch block (4% versus 0%) and Q waves (5.3

27 s follows: right bundle-branch block, 65.2%; left bundle-branch block, 43.75%; normal QRS, 27.6%.

28 ular pacing/stimulation in DCM patients with left bundle-branch block acutely enhances systolic funct

29 t and possibly with harm in patients without left bundle-branch block (adjusted hazard ratio for deat

30 Only 17 patients (2.0%) had new Q waves or left bundle-branch block after surgery; however, cTnT el

31 New-onset persistent left bundle-branch block after TAVR occurred in 37 patie

32 Twelve-lead ECGs during left bundle branch block and cardiac resynchronization t

33 iopathic VT (n = 23) or PVCs (n = 47) with a left bundle branch block and inferior QRS axis morpholog

34 he parietal band VAs were characterized by a left bundle branch block and left inferior (n=12) or sup

35 ikely to have nonischemic cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block and less likely to have renal d

36 eart failure with QRS duration >/=150 ms and left bundle branch block and less predictable in those w

37 Left bundle branch block and RBBB induced similar QRS wi

38 origin; ventricular tachycardias (VTs) with left bundle branch block and V(3) transition remain a ch

39 Patients with new-onset persistent left bundle-branch block and a QRS duration >160 ms had

40 or Occluded Coronary Arteries) trial who had left bundle-branch block and acute myocardial infarction

41 ed conduction disturbances, mainly new-onset left bundle-branch block and advanced atrioventricular b

42 In left bundle-branch block and AV-block hearts, optimal he

43 er adjustment for other significant factors, left bundle-branch block and intraventricular conduction

44 New-onset left bundle-branch block and the need for permanent pace

45 logists reviewed presenting ECGs to identify left bundle-branch block and, in the absence of left bun

46 c blood pressure <100 mm Hg, anterior MI, or left bundle branch block, and as "low clinical risk" if

47 luded smoking, left ventricular hypertrophy, left bundle branch block, and diabetes mellitus; it had

48 patients with left bundle branch block, non-left bundle branch block, and right bundle branch block

49 current smoking, body mass index >35 kg/m2, left bundle-branch block, and left ventricular hypertrop

50 oventricular (AV) block, bifascicular block, left bundle branch block, atrial fibrillation, and left

51 Left bundle-branch block (BBB) is considered an importan

52 equiring permanent pacing, three of whom had left bundle branch block before the procedure.

53 n 37 patients, 8.1% of whom had intermittent left bundle-branch block before the procedure.

54 erences were significant among patients with left bundle branch block conduction disturbance (n = 1,2

55 tality in those with QRS >/= 150 ms and with left bundle branch block conduction disturbance, respect

56 In patients with mild heart failure and left bundle branch block, decreased RWT was associated w

57 t bundle-branch block and, in the absence of left bundle-branch block, definite STEMI (according to b

58 After the procedure, left bundle branch block developed in 46% of septal myec

59 m survival benefit of CRT-D in patients with left bundle-branch block did not differ significantly ac

60 symptoms, left ventricular dysfunction, and left bundle-branch block, early intervention with CRT-D

61 Ten DCM patients with left bundle-branch block (ejection fraction 20+/-3%, QRS

62 or nonsustained ventricular tachycardia with left bundle branch block excluding right ventricular out

63 dogs and 24 patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block followed by computer simulation

64 to 3.55; p = 0.033) and new-onset persistent left bundle-branch block following TAVR (HR: 2.26, 95% C

65 ormal left ventricular ejection fraction and left bundle-branch block; group 3 (n=20), left ventricul

66 h dipyridamole or adenosine in patients with left bundle-branch block has not been established.

67 In left bundle-branch block hearts, CRTopt occurred at A-LV

68 uent HFEs was pronounced among patients with left bundle branch block (HR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.49

69 ST elevation/left bundle branch block identified patients with reduce

70 tricular tachycardia in 26, and intermittent left bundle-branch block in 3 patients.

71 Left bundle-branch block incidence was 13% at baseline a

72 Idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias of left bundle branch block inferior axis morphology are us

73 ographic pattern associated with this VT was left bundle branch block, inferior axis and early precor

74 Normal heart VT with left bundle branch block, inferior axis and early precor

75 Twelve patients with normal heart left bundle branch block, inferior axis VT and previousl

76 n RVOT-VT and ARVD/C-VT patients can share a left bundle branch block/inferior axis morphology.

77 a or premature ventricular contractions with left bundle branch block/inferior axis pattern in 16 ARV

78 branch block/inferior axis, case 3 showed a left bundle branch block/inferior axis, and case 4 showe

79 cardia and a wide complex tachycardia with a left bundle branch block/inferior axis.

80 Left bundle branch block is far more common than right b

81 with a pronounced effect among patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.58

82 to 0.82], p = 0.001) and CRT-D patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) (HR: 0.51 [95% CI: 0.35

83 rial evolution in ST segment, T or Q wave or left bundle branch block (LBBB) abnormalities between th

84 synchronization Therapy) study patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and 0, 1, 2, or >/=3 com

85 specific syndrome characterized by isolated left bundle branch block (LBBB) and a history of progres

86 sought to separate the effects of associated left bundle branch block (LBBB) and coronary artery dise

87 plitude (VAQRS), halfway between that during left bundle branch block (LBBB) and LV pacing, reflects

88 ble data on the clinical impact of new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) and permanent pacemaker

89 urrent guidelines suggest that patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) be treated with cardiac

90 Left bundle branch block (LBBB) causes left ventricular

91 (HF) and death events in CRT-D patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) enrolled in MADIT-CRT (M

92 ents, isolated T wave inversion in 21.9% and left bundle branch block (LBBB) in 9.0%.

93 and prognostic value of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (LBBB) in patients undergoing t

94 Patients without left bundle branch block (LBBB) or patients with smaller

95 k (RBBB) patients have larger scar size than left bundle branch block (LBBB) patients do.

96 with a suspected acute coronary syndrome and left bundle branch block (LBBB) present a unique diagnos

97 y be no benefit of CRT-D in patients without left bundle branch block (LBBB) regardless of patient se

98 Studies in canine hearts with acute left bundle branch block (LBBB) showed that endocardial

99 patients with CRT-D in a very wide QRSD with left bundle branch block (LBBB) versus those without LBB

100 Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was present in 65 patien

101 12-lead electrocardiographic morphology was left bundle branch block (LBBB), and in 15, it was nonsp

102 yopathy (DCM); in particular, the effects of left bundle branch block (LBBB), coronary artery disease

103 In contrast to patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB), heart failure patients

104 Among patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB), women had a 21% lower m

105 ac resynchronization therapy candidates with left bundle branch block (LBBB)-like electrocardiogram m

106 nd coronary artery disease and patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB).

107 iling hearts with a pure right (RBBB) versus left bundle branch block (LBBB).

108 tment in mildly symptomatic HF patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB).

109 ation Therapy (MADIT-CRT), patients with non-left bundle branch block (LBBB; including right bundle b

110 demonstrated an adverse impact of persistent left bundle-branch block (LBBB) after surgical aortic va

111 Of these, 1175 had left bundle-branch block (LBBB) and 308 had non-LBBB.

112 LV) free wall differed between patients with left bundle-branch block (LBBB) and normal QRSd and if s

113 undergo exercise testing develop a transient left bundle-branch block (LBBB) during exercise, but its

114 t ventricular outflow tract arrhythmias with left bundle-branch block (LBBB) morphology.

115 ical trials were greater among patients with left bundle-branch block (LBBB) or longer QRS duration.

116 aimed to investigate the cardiac effects of left bundle-branch block (LBBB) using myocardial contras

117 ECGs at baseline, there were 1281 (70%) with left bundle-branch block (LBBB), 228 (13%) with right bu

118 myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with left bundle-branch block (LBBB), but the clinical impact

119 Although 30% to 50% of patients develop new left bundle-branch block (LBBB), its effect on clinical

120 acing similarly augment systolic function in left bundle-branch block (LBBB)-failing hearts despite d

121 atients with (1) RV dilatation, (2) multiple left bundle-branch block (LBBB)-type VTs, and (3) an abn

122 que is subjective and further complicated by left bundle-branch block (LBBB).

123 in myocardial infarction (MI) patients with left bundle-branch block (LBBB).

124 /-23 milliseconds, and 60.5% of subjects had left bundle-branch block (LBBB).

125 re performed in anesthetized dogs with acute left bundle-branch block (LBBB, n=10) and chronic LBBB w

126 age 65+/-12; ejection fraction 26+/-7%) with left bundle-branch block (LBBB; QRS duration 174+/-18 ms

127 treatment group, age, gender, QRS duration, left bundle-branch block, left ventricular ejection frac

128 r cardiothoracic ratio, higher prevalence of left bundle branch block, lower prevalence of atrial fib

129 d ventricular arrhythmias with a predominant left bundle branch block morphology and no ECG or echoca

130 Overall, patients with mild HF but without left bundle branch block morphology did not derive clini

131 cular arrhythmias arising intramurally had a left bundle-branch block morphology with inferior axis.

132 each scale), but not among patients without left bundle branch block (n = 494).

133 CRT was performed in dogs with chronic left bundle-branch block (n=8) or atrioventricular (AV)

134 y in clinical response between patients with left bundle branch block, non-left bundle branch block,

135 1 mm or more in at least 2 contiguous leads, left bundle branch block not known to be old, and no abs

136 When multivariate analyses were used, left bundle-branch block (odds ratio [OR]=0.22; 95% CI=0

137 Heart failure patients with left bundle branch block often benefit acutely from CRT;

138 Patients with left bundle branch block often have septal perfusion def

139 e, radiographic cardiomegaly, and q waves or left bundle branch block on an electrocardiogram.

140 The presence of left bundle-branch block on the electrocardiogram may co

141 tors (paced rhythms, ventricular rhythms, or left bundle-branch block) on the ECG performed before th

142 apy were most pronounced among patients with left bundle branch block or a QRS duration at least 150

143 alyzed the clinical outcome of patients with left bundle branch block or intraventricular conduction

144 pathologic Q waves on the electrocardiogram, left bundle branch block or nonischemic cardiomyopathy w

145 tachycardia, QRS prolongation resulting from left bundle-branch block or intraventricular conduction

146 artery (OR 4.6; P = 0.016), the presence of left bundle branch block (OR 39; P = 0.002), and first-d

147 (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.3), preoperative left bundle branch block (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.9),

148 RS duration >/=150 ms (OR: 1.79; p = 0.007), left bundle branch block (OR: 2.05; p = 0.006), body mas

149 d with a higher rate of new onset persistent left bundle branch block, particularly in patients recei

150 001, respectively) and nonsignificant in non-left bundle branch block patients (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.7

151 d the long-term clinical outcomes of 537 non-left bundle branch block patients with mild HF enrolled

152 Left bundle-branch block patients have a high mortality

153 Left bundle-branch block patients with chest pain were g

154 Left bundle-branch block patients with MI who present wi

155 Among 1274 left bundle-branch block patients, 413 (32%) presented w

156 Among non-left bundle-branch block patients, low GFR predicted out

157 e differentiated from the A-LV summit VAs by left bundle branch block pattern, QRS duration </=175 ms

158 e ventricular contractions with right and/or left bundle branch block patterns were identified.

159 In patients with left bundle branch block, pharmacologic stress is more s

160 r disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, and left bundle-branch block predicted risk of HFREF.

161 eft ventricular enlargement only, one with a left bundle branch block) presented with advanced HF and

162 s (extensive ST-segment elevation, new-onset left bundle branch block, previous myocardial infarction

163 farction (OR=0.32; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.53) and left bundle-branch block QRS morphology (OR=0.21; 95% CI

164 ponse score (female sex, nonischemic origin, left bundle-branch block, QRS >/=150 milliseconds, prior

165 Left bundle branch block reduced peak Vo(2) (by 10.5 ml.

166 nchronization therapy for heart failure with left bundle branch block reduces left ventricular (LV) c

167 We studied 383 consecutive patients with left bundle branch block referred for perfusion scintigr

168 Patients with left bundle-branch block, regardless of baseline renal f

169 ormal excitation, as well as during right or left bundle branch block, resembled experimental measure

170 11 patients with systolic heart failure and left bundle-branch block scheduled for cardiac resynchro

171 study, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, left bundle branch block, signal-averaged electrocardiog

172 f 120 patients with QRS 120 to 149 ms or non-left bundle branch block, significant associations of ba

173 Left bundle branch block significantly determines restin

174 criteria (QRS duration of 120-149 ms or non-left bundle branch block), SSI>/=9.7% was independently

175 Case 1 showed a left bundle branch block/superior axis, case 2 showed a

176 re than 6 hours after the onset of symptoms, left bundle branch block, total ST-segment elevation of

177 that reverse remodeling is predicted by the left bundle branch block ventricular activation sequence

178 gment depression greater than 1 mm, complete left bundle-branch block, ventricular paced rhythm, pree

179 Left bundle branch block was associated with higher LV m

180 of death from any cause among patients with left bundle-branch block was 18% among patients randomly

181 with an electrocardiographic pattern showing left bundle-branch block was associated with a significa

182 Complete or incomplete left bundle-branch block was found in 15.4% of the paren

183 was found in 13% (n = 89) of the population; left bundle-branch block was found in 7% (n = 48).

184 cal surface electrocardiographic patterns of left bundle-branch block were all noted during intention

185 tant prognostic information in patients with left bundle-branch block, which is incremental to clinic

186 arction-4, we studied patients with STEMI or left bundle branch block who received acute reperfusion

187 AMI associated with ST-segment elevation or left bundle branch block who underwent primary angioplas

188 e study group consisted of 245 patients with left bundle-branch block who underwent tomographic (sing

189 e MI associated with ST-segment elevation or left bundle-branch block who were treated with primary a

190 with acute STEMI (including 3 patients with left bundle-branch block) who were undergoing infarct-ar

191 dyslipidemia, and had more often a non-LBBB (left bundle branch block) wide QRS complex, and lower le

192 d with a higher rate of new onset persistent left bundle branch block with the CoreValve (47.7% versu

193 </=25%, 55% ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 71% left bundle-branch block) with a follow-up of 29+/-11 mo

194 ivariable adjustment, older age, female sex, left bundle branch block, worsened heart failure class,