Elsevier

Journal of Electrocardiology

Volume 57, Supplement, November–December 2019, Pages S56-S60
Journal of Electrocardiology

Evaluation of mortality in bundle branch block patients from an electronic cohort: Clinical Outcomes in Digital Electrocardiography (CODE) study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2019.09.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Left bundle branch block is recognized as a marker of higher risk of death, but the prognostic value of the right bundle branch block in the general population is still controversial. Our aim is to evaluate the risk of overall and cardiovascular mortality in patients with right (RBBB) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) in a large electronic cohort of Brazilian patients.

Methods

This observational retrospective study was developed with the database of digital ECGs from Telehealth Network of Minas Gerais, Brazil (TNMG). All ECGs performed from 2010 to 2017 in primary care patients over 16 years old were assessed. The electronic cohort was obtained by linking data from ECG exams (name, sex, date of birth, city of residence) and those from national mortality information system, using standard probabilistic linkage methods (FRIL: Fine-grained record linkage software, v.2.1.5, Atlanta, GA). Only the first ECG of each patient was considered. Clinical data were self-reported, and ECGs were interpreted manually by cardiologists and automatically by the Glasgow University Interpreter software. Hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was estimated using Cox regression.

Results

From a dataset of 1,773,689 patients, 1,558,421 primary care patients over 16 years old underwent a valid ECG recording during 2010 to 2017. We excluded 17,359 patients that didn't have a valid QRS measure from the Glasgow program and 11,091 patients from the control group that had QRS equal or above 120 ms and were not RBBB or LBBB. Therefore, 1,529,971 were included (median age 52 [Q1:38; Q3:65] years; 40.2% were male). In a mean follow-up of 3.7 years, the overall mortality rate was 3.34%. RBBB was more frequent (2.42%) than LBBB (1.32%). In multivariate analysis, adjusting for sex, age and comorbidities, both patients with RBBB (HR 1.32; CI 95% 1.27–1.37) and LBBB (HR 1.69; CI 95% 1.62–1.76) had higher risk of overall mortality. Women with RBBB had an increased risk of all-cause death compared to men (p < 0.001). Cardiovascular mortality was higher in patients with LBBB (HR 1.77; CI 95% 1.55–2.01), but not for RBBB.

Conclusions

Patients with RBBB and LBBB had higher risk of overall mortality. Women with RBBB had more risk of all-cause death than men. LBBB was associated with higher risk of cardiovascular mortality.

Introduction

Bundle branch block has been associated with worse prognosis in cardiac disease, especially in heart failure [1]. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is a known predictor of cardiac events in coronary heart disease [2], heart failure [3] and also in general population [4,5]. However, there are controversial data regarding right bundle branch block (RBBB), considered to be benign in asymptomatic healthy individuals [6]. Although, one study conducted in the general population showed that RBBB was associated with higher risk in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality [7]. For coronary heart disease and heart failure, the prognostic meaning of RBBB also has conflicted findings in the literature [5,8].

Most previous findings came from epidemiological studies or case series. More recently, large databases of digital electrocardiograms (ECG) were linked to mortality databases, what was called an electronic cohort. Big data provided from electronic cohorts with a large amount of information have more reliable and applicable results to the general population [9]. Our aim was to evaluate the overall and cardiovascular mortality in bundle branch block patients from a large electronic cohort composed by primary care patients.

Section snippets

Methods

We conducted an observational retrospective study using database of digital ECGs from the Telehealth Network of Minas Gerais (TNMG) [10]. This public Brazilian telehealth system has performed >4 million ECGs since its inception, in 2006, and is responsible for the ECG report of >900 municipalities in Brazil.

All ECGs performed by the TNMG from patients of at least 16 years-old from 2010 to 2017 were assessed. The majority of patients (79%) underwent routine ECG. Exams without valid tracings or

Results

From a dataset of 1,773,689 patients, 1,558,421(87.8%) primary care patients over 16 years old underwent a valid ECG recording during 2010 to 2017. We excluded 17,359(1.0%) patients that didn't have a valid QRS measure from the Glasgow program and 11,091(0.6%) patients from the control group that had QRS equal or above 120 ms and were not RBBB or LBBB. Therefore, 1,529,971(86.2%) were included (median age 52 [Q1:38; Q3:65] years; 40.2% were male). The prevalence of RBBB (2.42%) was higher than

Discussion

Our study showed that the presence of bundle branch block has prognostic significance in a very large population derived from primary care setting. Both RBBB and LBBB were independent risk factors for all-cause mortality. Female sex had increased risk of all-cause deaths in patients with RBBB. LBBB, but not RBBB, was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality.

The prevalence of RBBB and LBBB was significantly higher in this sample than in others studies conducted in the general

Conclusions

LBBB and RBBB increased the risk of all-cause mortality in patients of Brazilian primary care centers. Women with RBBB had higher risk of all-causes deaths than men. LBBB, and not RBBB, was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge work of the cardiologists from the TNMG, who performed all ECG analyses.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from IATS/CNPq and FAPEMIG, Brazil. A.L.R. was supported in part by CNPq (Bolsa de produtividade em pesquisa, 309073/2011-1) and FAPEMIG (Programa Pesquisador Mineiro, PPM-00161-13). LGSS and MPFF received scholarships from CAPES and CNPq through IATS – Instituto de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

References (20)

  • A. Veloso et al.

    Calibrated lazy associative classification

    Inf Sci (Ny)

    (2011)
  • N.C. Wang et al.

    Clinical implications of QRS duration in patients hospitalized with worsening heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

    JAMA - J Am Med Assoc

    (2008)
  • B. Al Rajoub et al.

    The prognostic value of a new left bundle branch block in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Hear Lung J Acute Crit Care

    (2017)
  • C.M. Witt et al.

    Outcomes with left bundle branch block and mildly to moderately reduced left ventricular function

    JACC Hear Fail

    (2016)
  • P. Eriksson et al.

    Bundle-branch block in middle-aged men: risk of complications and death over 28 years - the primary prevention study in Göteborg, Sweden

    Eur Heart J

    (2005)
  • P. Haataja et al.

    Prognostic implications of intraventricular conduction delays in a general population: the health 2000 survey

    Ann Med

    (2015)
  • J.L. Fleg et al.

    Right bundle branch block: long-term prognosis in apparently healthy men

    J Am Coll Cardiol

    (1983)
  • B.E. Bussink et al.

    Right bundle branch block: prevalence, risk factors, and outcome in the general population: results from the Copenhagen City Heart Study

    Eur Heart J

    (2013)
  • L. Lai et al.

    Prognostic impact of right bundle branch block in hospitalized patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy: a single-center cohort study

    J Int Med Res

    (2018)
  • S.C. Denaxas et al.

    Data resource profile: cardiovascular disease research using linked bespoke studies and electronic health records (CALIBER)

    Int J Epidemiol

    (2012)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (7)

View all citing articles on Scopus

The authors take responsibility for all aspects of the reliability and freedom from bias of the data presented and their discussed interpretation.

View full text