Prognostic value of new-onset right bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and bundle-branch block have poor prognoses. The new European Society of Cardiology guideline suggests a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy when persistent ischemic symptoms occur in patients with persistent ischemic symptom...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Juntao Wang, Hongxing Luo, Chunling Kong, Shujuan Dong, Jingchao Li, Haijia Yu, Yingjie Chu
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: PeerJ Inc. 2018-03-01
Series:PeerJ
Subjects:
Online Access:https://peerj.com/articles/4497.pdf
id doaj-a5f9ae4279b344ab8e421c0c6ab81fcc
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a5f9ae4279b344ab8e421c0c6ab81fcc2020-11-24T23:21:33ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592018-03-016e449710.7717/peerj.4497Prognostic value of new-onset right bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysisJuntao Wang0Hongxing Luo1Chunling Kong2Shujuan Dong3Jingchao Li4Haijia Yu5Yingjie Chu6Department of Cardiology, Zhengzhou University People’s Hospital, Zhengzhou, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, Zhengzhou University People’s Hospital, Zhengzhou, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, Zhengzhou University People’s Hospital, Zhengzhou, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, Henan Province People’s Hospital, Zhengzhou, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, Henan Province People’s Hospital, Zhengzhou, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, Henan Province People’s Hospital, Zhengzhou, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, Zhengzhou University People’s Hospital, Zhengzhou, ChinaBackground Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and bundle-branch block have poor prognoses. The new European Society of Cardiology guideline suggests a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy when persistent ischemic symptoms occur in patients with persistent ischemic symptoms and right bundle-branch block (RBBB), but the level of evidence is not high. In fact, the presence of RBBB may lead to the misdiagnosis of transmural ischemia and mask the early diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Moreover, new-onset RBBB is occasionally caused by AMI. Our study aims to investigate the prognostic value of new-onset RBBB in AMI. Methods and Results We conducted a meta-analysis of studies to evaluate the prognostic value of RBBB in AMI patients. Of 914 primary records, five studies and 874 MI patients were included for meta-analysis. Compared with previous RBBB, AMI patients with new-onset RBBB had a higher risk of long-term mortality (RR, 1.66, 95% CI [1.31–2.09], I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.000, n = 2), ventricular arrhythmia (RR, 4.86, 95% CI [2.10–11.27], I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.000, n = 3), and cardiogenic shock (RR, 2.76, 95% CI [1.66–4.59], I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.000, n = 3), but a lower risk of heart failure (RR, 0.66, 95% CI [0.52–0.85], I2 = 2.50%, p = 0.001, n = 4). Compared with AMI patients with new-onset permanent RBBB, patients with new-onset transient RBBB had a lower risk of short-term mortality (RR, 0.20, 95% CI [0.11–0.37], I2 = 44.1%, p = 0.000, n = 4). Conclusion New-onset RBBB is likely to increase long-term mortality, ventricular arrhythmia, and cardiogenic shock, but not heart failure in AMI patients. AMI patients with new-onset transient RBBB have a lower risk of short-term mortality than those with new-onset permanent RBBB. Revascularization therapies should be considered when persistent ischemic symptoms occur in patients with RBBB, especially new-onset RBBB.https://peerj.com/articles/4497.pdfMyocardial infarctionBundle-branch blockPrognosisMeta-analysis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Juntao Wang
Hongxing Luo
Chunling Kong
Shujuan Dong
Jingchao Li
Haijia Yu
Yingjie Chu
spellingShingle Juntao Wang
Hongxing Luo
Chunling Kong
Shujuan Dong
Jingchao Li
Haijia Yu
Yingjie Chu
Prognostic value of new-onset right bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
PeerJ
Myocardial infarction
Bundle-branch block
Prognosis
Meta-analysis
author_facet Juntao Wang
Hongxing Luo
Chunling Kong
Shujuan Dong
Jingchao Li
Haijia Yu
Yingjie Chu
author_sort Juntao Wang
title Prognostic value of new-onset right bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Prognostic value of new-onset right bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Prognostic value of new-onset right bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Prognostic value of new-onset right bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic value of new-onset right bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort prognostic value of new-onset right bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
publisher PeerJ Inc.
series PeerJ
issn 2167-8359
publishDate 2018-03-01
description Background Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and bundle-branch block have poor prognoses. The new European Society of Cardiology guideline suggests a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy when persistent ischemic symptoms occur in patients with persistent ischemic symptoms and right bundle-branch block (RBBB), but the level of evidence is not high. In fact, the presence of RBBB may lead to the misdiagnosis of transmural ischemia and mask the early diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Moreover, new-onset RBBB is occasionally caused by AMI. Our study aims to investigate the prognostic value of new-onset RBBB in AMI. Methods and Results We conducted a meta-analysis of studies to evaluate the prognostic value of RBBB in AMI patients. Of 914 primary records, five studies and 874 MI patients were included for meta-analysis. Compared with previous RBBB, AMI patients with new-onset RBBB had a higher risk of long-term mortality (RR, 1.66, 95% CI [1.31–2.09], I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.000, n = 2), ventricular arrhythmia (RR, 4.86, 95% CI [2.10–11.27], I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.000, n = 3), and cardiogenic shock (RR, 2.76, 95% CI [1.66–4.59], I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.000, n = 3), but a lower risk of heart failure (RR, 0.66, 95% CI [0.52–0.85], I2 = 2.50%, p = 0.001, n = 4). Compared with AMI patients with new-onset permanent RBBB, patients with new-onset transient RBBB had a lower risk of short-term mortality (RR, 0.20, 95% CI [0.11–0.37], I2 = 44.1%, p = 0.000, n = 4). Conclusion New-onset RBBB is likely to increase long-term mortality, ventricular arrhythmia, and cardiogenic shock, but not heart failure in AMI patients. AMI patients with new-onset transient RBBB have a lower risk of short-term mortality than those with new-onset permanent RBBB. Revascularization therapies should be considered when persistent ischemic symptoms occur in patients with RBBB, especially new-onset RBBB.
topic Myocardial infarction
Bundle-branch block
Prognosis
Meta-analysis
url https://peerj.com/articles/4497.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT juntaowang prognosticvalueofnewonsetrightbundlebranchblockinacutemyocardialinfarctionpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hongxingluo prognosticvalueofnewonsetrightbundlebranchblockinacutemyocardialinfarctionpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chunlingkong prognosticvalueofnewonsetrightbundlebranchblockinacutemyocardialinfarctionpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT shujuandong prognosticvalueofnewonsetrightbundlebranchblockinacutemyocardialinfarctionpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jingchaoli prognosticvalueofnewonsetrightbundlebranchblockinacutemyocardialinfarctionpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT haijiayu prognosticvalueofnewonsetrightbundlebranchblockinacutemyocardialinfarctionpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yingjiechu prognosticvalueofnewonsetrightbundlebranchblockinacutemyocardialinfarctionpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
_version_ 1725571274044866560