Right and Left Ventricular Activation Sequence in Patients with Heart Failure and Right Bundle Branch Block:A Detailed Analysis Using Three-Dimensional Non-Fluoroscopic Electroanatomic Mapping System

• Published in: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology Vol. 16; no. 2; pp. 112 - 119
• Main Authors: FANTONI, CECILIA, KAWABATA, MIHOKO, MASSARO, RAIMONDO, REGOLI, FRANCOIS, RAFFA, SANTI, ARORA, VANITA, SALERNO-URIARTE, JORGE A., KLEIN, HELMUT U., AURICCHIO, ANGELO
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 350 Main Street , Malden , MA 02148-5018 , USA , and 9600 Garsington Road , Oxford OX4 2DQ , UK Blackwell Science Inc 01.02.2005
• Subjects: Aged; Body Surface Potential Mapping - methods; Bundle-Branch Block - physiopathology; cardiac resynchronization therapy; Electrocardiography; Electrophysiology; Female; heart failure; Heart Failure - physiopathology; Heart Ventricles - physiopathology; Humans; Male; mapping; Middle Aged; right bundle branch block; ventricular conduction disturbances
• ISSN: 1045-3873; 1540-8167
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2005.40777.x

Introduction: Recently, right bundle branch block (RBBB) was proved to be an important predictor of mortality in heart failure (HF) patients as much as left bundle branch block (LBBB). We characterized endocardial right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) activation sequence in HF patients with RBBB using a three‐dimensional non‐fluoroscopic electroanatomic contact mapping system (3D‐Map) in order to provide the electrophysiological background to understand whether these patients can benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods and Results: Using 3D‐Map, RV and LV activation sequences were studied in 100 consecutive HF patients. Six of these patients presented with RBBB QRS morphology. The maps of these patients were analyzed and compared post hoc with those of the other 94 HF patients presenting with LBBB. Clinical and hemodynamic profile was significantly worse in RBBB group compared to LBBB. Patients with RBBB showed significantly longer time to RV breakthrough (P < 0.001), longer activation times of RV anterior and lateral regions (P < 0.001), and longer total RV endocardial activation time (P < 0.02) compared to patients with LBBB. Time to LV breakthrough was significantly shorter in patients with RBBB (P < 0.001), while total and regional LV endocardial activation times were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: Degree of LV activation delay is similar between HF patients with LBBB and RBBB. Moreover, patients with RBBB have larger right‐sided conduction delay compared to patients with LBBB. The assessment of these electrical abnormalities is important to understand the rationale for delivering CRT in HF patients with RBBB.