Abstract
Background
In the general population, the incidence of bundle branch block (BBB) is relatively low, and its effects on long-term prognosis have not been established. Previous studies on the incidence and correlation of BBB to clinical factors have produced conflicting results. However, the incidence of BBB was strongly related to age. This study aimed to describe the incidence of and risk factors for BBB in Korea.
Methods
In this study, 14,540 adults (male 6,573/female 7,967) ≥40 years old received screening tests for general health between April and December 2000. Participants answered questionnaires and underwent examinations, which included blood pressure, electrocardiogram (ECG), total cholesterol and fasting glucose. The data analysis was performed using SPSS 10.0 for windows.
Results
The Incidences of complete right bundle branch block (CRBBB) were 1.5 and 2.9% in people older than 40 and 65 years, respectively. Approximately 38.0% of individuals with CRBBB were older than 65 years. The incidence of CRBBB was higher in men than women at all age groups was highest in those aged 75–79 years. Males, advancing age (≥65 years), hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM) were associated with an increased risk of CRBBB. The incidences of complete left bundle branch block (LBBB) and bifascicular bundle branch block (BBBB) were 0.1 and 0.08% and 0.3 and 0.2% in those older than 40 and 65 years, respectively. Approximately 71.4 and 58.3% of individuals with LBBB and BBBB, respectively, were older than 65 years. Advancing age and cardiac disease were associated with an increased risk of LBBB. Advancing age was associated with an increased risk of BBBB. The most potent risk factor for BBB in this study was advancing age.
Conclusion
The incidences of BBB were 1.7 and 3.4% in those older than 40 and 65 years respectively. Bundle branch block correlates strongly with age, and is common in the older ages groups. These findings support the theory that bundle branch block is a marker of slowly progressing degenerative diseases.
Keywords: Bundle branch block, Incidence, Risk factors
INTRODUCTION
In the general population, the prevalence of bundle branch block is relatively low, and its effects on long-term prognosis have not been established. Investigations on the incidence of and risk factors for BBB have also yielded conflicting results. Fahy et al.1) reported an overall prevalence of 0.3% for bundle branch block (right or left). In the Reykjavic study2, 3), the prevalence of LBBB and RBBB were 0.4 and 0.28% and 4.1 and 1.6% in men and women, respectively, aged 75–79 years old. In men younger than 60 years, RBBB had significant relationships with hypertension, elevated fasting glucose and increased heart size. There was a relationship between hypertension and RBBB in women younger than 60 years. The Tecumseh study4) showed the prevalence of bundle branch block to be 2.4% in men > 50 years old. In the Framingham study5), complete intraventricular block (QRS interval greater than or equal to 0.12 second) was strongly related to age, with a prevalence of 11 and 5% in elderly men and women, respectively. In all these population studies, BBB was more common among men than women, right-side block was more frequent than left-side block, but an increased mortality was not observed, with the exception of patients who had coronary artery disease.
Erikson et al.6) found the prevalence of BBB increased from 1 to 50% between the ages of 50 and 80 years in men, but no significant relationship with ischemic heart disease or mortality. Men at risk of developing BBB had bigger heart volumes at age 50 years and developed diabetes mellitus and congestive heart disease during follow-up to a greater extent than the control subjects. These investigators concluded; BBB correlates strongly to age, was common in elderly men and its development was related to slowly progressive degenerative diseases of the conducting system.
In contrast with the good prognosis for complete bundle branch block in the general population, the appearance of new bundle branch block during acute myocardial infarction is associated with poor early and long-term prognoses. In two recent studies7, 8), bundle branch block, particularly new and permanent, was an independent predictor of increased mortality; whereas old or transient bundle branch blocks were associated with only a slightly increased risk of mortality. Among patients with acute myocardial infarction, right bundle branch block is more common than left bundle branch block.
Hesse et al.9) reported in their 6.7 year follow-up that right and left bundle branch blocks were associated with increased mortality. Patients with right bundle branch block were older, more likely to be male, and had coronary artery and pulmonary disease more frequently than those without. Patients with left bundle branch block were also older, but included more women.
In Korea, the incidence of and risk factors for BBB were not evaluated. This study aimed to describe the incidence of and risk factors for BBB in Koreans.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In our study, 14,540 adults (male 6,573/female 7,967) ≥ 40 years old inhabitants of 5 cities and 3 counties in Gyeong-sangnam-do received screening tests for general health between April and December 2000 by a National Health Insurance Cooperation. All participants answered questionnaires on history of medical illness (hypertension, DM, and cardiovascular disease), smoking and alcohol drinking, and underwent examinations including blood pressure, electrocardiogram (ECG), total cholesterol and fasting glucose.
Blood sampling was performed after a fasting state of at least 12 hours. Plasma total cholesterol and glucose were measured in an autoanalyzer (Automatic analyzer, Hitachi 736–20, Japan) by enzymatic and glucose-oxidase methods. The 12-lead resting ECG was performed using an Auto Cardiner FCP-2201, FCP-2155 (Fukuda Denshi Co. Japan). Hypertension was defined as a systolic blood pressure of at least 140 mmHg or a diastolic blood pressure of at least 90 mmHg on each of two readings, according to the Joint National Committee criteria VI (JNC VI)10), or by the use of antihypertensive medication. Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed if the subjects had a fasting glucose level equal to or higher than 126 mg/dL, according to the ADA (American Diabetes Association) diagnostic criteria11), or the taking of insulin or an oral hypoglycemic agent at the time of the examination. Hypercholesterolemia was diagnosed if the subjects had a serum total cholesterol level equal to or higher(than 240 mg/dL, according to the NCEP III (National Cholesterol Education Program III) criteria12).
Clinical cardiovascular disease at the baseline was defined by any of the following: a history of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, heart failure, valvular heart disease, cardiomyopathy, and stroke. Alcohol drinking was ascertained by self-report and categorized as the weekly alcohol consumption > 90 g ethanol (Soju 1 bottle/week). CRBBB was defined as (1) QRS duration ≥ 120 ms, (2) PQ interval > 120 ms, (3) rSR’ in lead V1 or V2 and (4) S wave in lead I and either of leads V5 or V6. LBBB was defined as (1) QRS duration ≥ 120 ms, (2) PQ interval > 120 ms, (3) predominantly upright complexes with slurred R waves in leads I, V5 and V6 and (4) QS or rS pattern in lead V1. They were further classified according to the QRS axis, i.e. < −30 degrees or > +90 degrees indicating a possibility of a bifascicular block (concomitant a left or right anterior hemiblock. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 10.0 (Statistical package for the social sciences, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, U.S.A.) for Windows and correlation analysis by chi-square tests, contingency coefficients and Cramer’s V. Multivariate analysis was performed by a multinominal logistic regression test. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
A total of 14,540 subjects (6,573 men and 7,967 women), with a mean age 54.6±10.8 of years, ranginge from 40 to 92, were enrolled in our study. Table 1 lists the numbers of participants according to age and gender.
Table 1.
Numbers of participants according to age & gender
| Age Groups (years) | Total (%) | Male (%) | Female (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 – 49 | 5,576 (38.4) | 2,491 (37.9) | 3,085 (38.7) |
| 50 – 59 | 3,920 (27.0) | 1,830 (27.8) | 2,090 (26.2) |
| 60 – 64 | 2,168 (14.9) | 988 (15.0) | 1,180 (14.8) |
| 65 – 69 | 1,237 (8.5) | 518 (7.9) | 719 (9.0) |
| 70 – 74 | 1,095 (7.5) | 480 (7.3) | 615 (7.7) |
| 75 – 79 | 369 (2.5) | 177 (2.7) | 192 (2.4) |
| ≥ 80 | 175 (1.2) | 89 (1.4) | 86 (1.1) |
| Total | 14,540 (100) | 6,573 (100) | 7,967 (100) |
The incidences of BBB were 1.7 (242/14,540) and 3.4% (99/2,876) in those older than 40 and 65 years, respectively. Approximately 89.3% (216/242) of individuals with BBB were CRBBB, and 5.8 (14/242) and 5.0% (12/242) were LBBB and BBBB, respectively. The mean age of those with LBBB was 69.1 years old, which was older than other groups.
The incidences of CRBBB) were 1.5 (216/14,540) and 2.9% (82/2,876) in those older than 40 and 65 years, respectively. The incidences in men and women were 1.8 (121/6,573) and 1.2% (95/7,967), respectively, in people older than 40 years. The mean age of individuals with CRBBB was approximately 61.1±10.8 years. The incidence of CRBBB was 1.5-fold higher in men than in women. The incidences of CRBBB were 0.7, 1.1, 2.4, 2.9, 4.1 and 2.9% in those aged 40–49, 50–59, 60–64, 65–69, 70–74, 75–79 and older than 80 years, respectively. The incidence of CRBBB was higher in all age groups for men than women. Approximately 38.0% (82/216) of individuals with CRBBB were older than 65 years. Also, the incidence of CRBBB was highest in the 75–79 years age group. Table II lists the incidences of CRBBB according to age groups and sexgender.
Table 2.
Incidence of CRBBB according to age & gender
| Age Groups (years) | Total (%) | Male (%) | Female (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 – 49 | 38 (0.7) | 23 (0.9) | 15 (0.5) |
| 50 – 59 | 45 (1.1) | 26 (1.4) | 19 (0.9) |
| 60 – 64 | 51 (2.4) | 28 (2.8) | 23 (1.9) |
| 65 – 69 | 30 (2.4) | 15 (2.9) | 15 (2.1) |
| 70 – 74 | 32 (2.9) | 17 (3.5) | 15 (2.4) |
| 75 – 79 | 15 (4.1) | 9 (5.1) | 6 (3.1) |
| ≥ 80 | 5 (2.9) | 3 (3.4) | 2 (2.3) |
| Total | 216 (1.5) | 121 (1.8) | 95 (1.2) |
% = numbers of CRBBB/numbers of participants
The incidences of complete left bundle branch block (LBBB) were 0.1 (14/14,540) and 0.3% (10/2,876) in those older than 40 and 65 years, respectively. The incidences in men and women were 0.12% (8/6,573) and 0.08% (6/7,967), respectively, in people older than 40 years. The mean age of individuals with LBBB was approximately 69.1±9.7 years. Approximately 71.4% (10/14) of individuals with LBBB was older than 65 years. Also, the incidence of LBBB was highest in people older than 80 years. Table III lists the incidence of LBBB according to age groups and gender.
Table 3.
Incidence of LBBB according to age & gender
| Age Groups (years) | Total (%) | Male (%) | Female (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 – 49 | 1 (0.02) | 1 (0.04) | 0 (0.00) |
| 50 – 59 | 1 (0.03) | 1 (0.05) | 0 (0.00) |
| 60 – 64 | 2 (0.09) | 1 (0.10) | 1 (0.08) |
| 65 – 69 | 3 (0.24) | 2 (0.39) | 1 (0.14) |
| 70 – 74 | 2 (0.18) | 1 (0.21) | 1 (0.16) |
| 75 – 79 | 2 (0.54) | 0 (0.00) | 2 (1.04) |
| ≥ 80 | 3 (1.71) | 2 (2.25) | 1 (1.16) |
| Total | 14 (0.10) | 8 (0.12) | 6 (0.08) |
% = numbers of LBBB/numbers of participants
The incidences of bifascicular bundle branch block (BBBB) were 0.08 (12/14,540) and 0.2% (7/2,876) in those older than 40 and 65 years, respectively. The incidences in men and women were 0.08 (5/6,573) and 0.09% (7/7,967), respectively, in people older than 40 years. The mean age of individuals with BBBB was approximately 63.8±13.2 years. The incidence of CRBBB and left anterior hemiblock and left posterior hemiblock were 91.7 (11 subjects, men 5 and women 6) and 8.3% (1 subject, men 1), respectively. Approximately 58.3% (7/12) of individuals with BBBB were older than 65 years. Also, the incidence of BBBB was highest in men aged 70–74 years and women older than 80 years. Table IV lists the incidence of BBBB according to age groups and gender.
Table 4.
Incidence of BBBB according to age & gender
| Age Groups (years) | Total (%) | Male (%) | Female (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 – 49 | 2 (0.04) | 1 (0.04) | 1 (0.03) |
| 50 – 59 | 1 (0.03) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (0.05) |
| 60 – 64 | 2 (0.09) | 1 (0.10) | 1 (0.08) |
| 65 – 69 | 2 (0.16) | 1 (0.19) | 1 (0.14) |
| 70 – 74 | 4 (0.37) | 2 (0.42) | 2 (0.33) |
| 75 – 79 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) |
| ≥ 80 | 1 (0.57) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (1.16) |
| Total | 12 (0.08) | 5 (0.08) | 7 (0.09) |
% = numbers of BBBB/numbers of participants
Advancing age (≥ 65 years) (p=0.0000), male (p=0.0016), hypertension (p=0.0016) and DM (p=0.0015) were significantly associated with an increased risk of CRBBB. However, hypercholesterolemia (p=0.3671), cigarette smoking (p=0.8153), alcohol drinking (p=0.9676), cardiac disease (p=0.9763) and stroke (p=0.6146) were not associated with an increased risk of CRBBB (Table 5).
Table 5.
Analysis of risk factors for CRBBB
| Risk factors | ECG (n)* | C. coefficient† | Cramer’s V | χ2 (p value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||||
| ≥65 | 82/2794 | 0.0553 | 0.0553 | 0.0000 |
| 40–64 | 134/11530 | |||
|
| ||||
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 121/6452 | 0.0261 | 0.0261 | 0.0016 |
| Female | 95/7872 | |||
|
| ||||
| Hypertension | ||||
| + | 61/2780 | 0.0262 | 0.0262 | 0.0016 |
| − | 155/11544 | |||
|
| ||||
| Diabetes mellitus | ||||
| + | 20/643 | 0.0263 | 0.0263 | 0.0015 |
| − | 196/13681 | |||
|
| ||||
| Hypercholesterolemia | ||||
| + | 18/1498 | 0.0075 | 0.0075 | 0.3671 |
| − | 198/12826 | |||
|
| ||||
| Smoking | ||||
| + | 32/2239 | 0.0019 | 0.0019 | 0.8153 |
| − | 184/12085 | |||
|
| ||||
| Alcohol drinking | ||||
| + | 35/2302 | 0.0003 | 0.0003 | 0.9676 |
| − | 181/12022 | |||
|
| ||||
| Cardiac disease | ||||
| + | 5/336 | 0.0004 | 0.0004 | 0.9763 |
| − | 211/13988 | |||
|
| ||||
| Stroke | ||||
| + | 3/120 | 0.0042 | 0.0042 | 0.6146 |
| − | 213/14204 | |||
ECG (n); Numbers of CRBBB/no CRBBB group
C. coefficient; contingency coefficient
Advancing age (p=0.0000) and cardiac disease (p=0.0000) were associated with an increased risk of LBBB. Advancing age (p=0.0028) was associated with an increased risk of BBBB, but gender (p=0.5292), hypertension (p=0.6062), DM (p=0.8592), hypercholesterolemia (p=0.3627), cigarette smoking (p=0.8175), alcohol drinking (p=0.8557) and stroke (p=0.2663) were not associated with an increased risk of LBBB. Also, gender (p=0.9652), hypertension (p=0.4001), DM (p=0.9479), hypercholesterolemia (p=0.8141), cigarette smoking (p=0.2743), alcohol drinking (p=0.7360), cardiac disease (p=0.1704) and stroke (p=0.2089) were not associated with an increased risk of BBBB (Table 6, 7).
Table 6.
Analysis of risk factors for LBBB
| Risk factors | ECG (n)* | C. coefficient† | Cramer’s V | χ2 (p value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age(years) | ||||
| ≥65 | 10/2866 | 0.0374 | 0.0375 | 0.0000 |
| 40–64 | 4/11660 | |||
|
| ||||
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 8/6565 | 0.0052 | 0.0052 | 0.5292 |
| Female | 6/7961 | |||
|
| ||||
| Hypertension | ||||
| + | 4/2837 | 0.0043 | 0.0043 | 0.6062 |
| − | 10/11689 | |||
|
| ||||
| Diabetes mellitus | ||||
| + | 1/662 | 0.0015 | 0.0015 | 0.8592 |
| − | 13/13864 | |||
|
| ||||
| Hypercholesterolemia | ||||
| + | 3/1513 | 0.0075 | 0.0075 | 0.3627 |
| − | 11/13013 | |||
|
| ||||
| Smoking | ||||
| + | 3/2268 | 0.0019 | 0.0019 | 0.8175 |
| − | 11/12258 | |||
|
| ||||
| Alcohol drinking | ||||
| + | 3/2334 | 0.0015 | 0.0015 | 0.8557 |
| − | 11/12192 | |||
|
| ||||
| Cardiac disease | ||||
| + | 5/336 | 0.0682 | 0.0682 | 0.0000 |
| − | 9/14190 | |||
|
| ||||
| Stroke | ||||
| + | 0/123 | 0.0092 | 0.0092 | 0.2653 |
| − | 14/14403 | |||
ECG (n); Numbers of LBBB/no LBBB group
C. coefficient; contingency coefficient
Table 7.
Analysis of risk factors for BBBB
| Risk factors | ECG (n)* | C. coefficient† | Cramer’s V | χ2 (p value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age(years) | ||||
| ≥ 65 | 7/2869 | 0.0248 | 0.0248 | 0.0028 |
| 40–64 | 5/11659 | |||
|
| ||||
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 5/6568 | 0.0004 | 0.0004 | 0.9652 |
| Female | 7/7960 | |||
|
| ||||
| Hypertension | ||||
| + | 4/2837 | 0.0070 | 0.0070 | 0.4001 |
| − | 8/11691 | |||
|
| ||||
| Diabetes mellitus | ||||
| + | 1/662 | 0.0005 | 0.0005 | 0.9479 |
| − | 11/13866 | |||
|
| ||||
| Hypercholesterolemia | ||||
| + | 1/1515 | 0.0020 | 0.0020 | 0.8141 |
| − | 11/13013 | |||
|
| ||||
| Smoking | ||||
| + | 0/2271 | 0.0091 | 0.0091 | 0.2743 |
| − | 12/12257 | |||
|
| ||||
| Alcohol drinking | ||||
| + | 1/2336 | 0.0028 | 0.0028 | 0.7360 |
| − | 11/12192 | |||
|
| ||||
| Cardiac disease | ||||
| + | 1/340 | 0.0113 | 0.0113 | 0.1704 |
| − | 11/14188 | |||
|
| ||||
| Stroke | ||||
| + | 1/122 | 0.0104 | 0.0104 | 0.2089 |
| − | 11/14406 | |||
ECG (n); Numbers of BBBB/no BBBB group
C. coefficient; contingency coefficient
After adjustment for age, gender and other clinical variable, the independent risk factors for RBBB were found to be old age (odds ratio, OR 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8 to 3.2; p=0.000), diabetes (OR 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2 to 3.1; p=0.006), male (OR 1.7; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.3; p=0.001) and hypertension (OR 1.4; 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.9; p=0.042). Also, independent risk factors for LBBB were old age (OR 8.6; 95% CI: 2.6 to 28.5; p=0.000) and cardiac disease (OR 18.2; 95% CI: 5.8 to 57.4; p=0.000). The only independent risk factor for BBBB was old age (OR 5.0; 95% CI: 1.5 to 16.5; p=0.007) (Table 8).
Table 8.
Multinominal logistic regression test by adjusted risk factors for BBB
| Risk factors | Odds ratio | 95% Confidence interval | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| RBBB | |||
| Age ≥ 65 years | 2.4 | 1.8–3.2 | 0.000 |
| Diabetes | 1.9 | 1.2–3.1 | 0.006 |
| Male | 1.7 | 1.3–2.3 | 0.001 |
| Hypertension | 1.4 | 1.0–1.9 | 0.042 |
|
| |||
| LBBB | |||
| Cardiac disease | 18.2 | 5.8–57.4 | 0.000 |
| Age ≥ 65 years | 8.6 | 2.6–28.5 | 0.000 |
|
| |||
| BBBB | |||
| Age ≥ 65years | 5.0 | 1.5–16.5 | 0.007 |
DISCUSSION
Several studies have shown that both left and right bundle branch block are associated with increased mortality among patients with heart disease, particularly those with myocardial infarction13–15). In the general population, however, the prevalence of bundle branch block is relatively low, and its effects on the long-term prognosis have not been established. Also, investigations of the incidence of and risk factors for BBB have yielded conflicting results.
In our study, the incidences of BBB were 1.7 and 3.4% in those older than 40 and 65 years, respectively. The incidences of CRBBB were 1.5 and 2.9% in those older than 40 and 65 years, respectively. The incidences in men and women were 1.8 and 1.2%, respectively, in people older than 40 years. The incidence of CRBBB was 1.5-fold higher in men than women. The incidence of CRBBB was higher in all age groups in men than women. The incidences of LBBB were 0.1 and 0.3% in people older than 40 and 65 years, respectively. The incidences in men and women were 0.12 and 0.08%, respectively, in people older than 40 years. The incidences of BBBB were 0.08 and 0.2% in those older than 40 and 65 years, respectively. The incidences in men and women were 0.08 and 0.09%, respectively, in people older than 40 years. Our results explain the wide prevalence range noted in earlier trials and show that BBB is highly age-dependent.
The etiology of BBB in subjects without evidence of structural heart disease is usually an age-related degeneration of the conducting system, which may be either a focal (Lev’s disease)16) or diffuse (Lenegre’s disease)17) process. This process is a result of mechanical trauma on the conduction system, leading to microtrauma of the proximal raminifications of the bundle branch system. A clinically unapparent episode of myocarditis with residual impairment of intraventricular conduction may be an etiologic factor in both right and left bundle branch block subjects18). Two points support this hypothesis: first, the majority of patients in the present series with acquired bundle branch block reported histories of prolonged flu-like illness in the year preceding their ECG abnormality; secondly, angiographic and hemodynamic data on patients with acquired right and left bundle branch block with no clinically apparent cardiovascular disease have revealed a mild diffuse abnormality of the ventricular myocardium manifested by elevation of left ventricular end-diastolic pressure. Others may have undetected ischemic or valvular heart disease or cardiomyopathy.
In the Framingham study19), an increased risk of subsequent development of coronary heart disease or congestive heart failure was shown in men who developed left bundle branch block. When adjusted for age, this difference was not significant. In women, however, the clinical correlations of the two conduction abnormalities were similar. The high prevalence rate of antecedent hypertension suggests that it may often play a central role in the pathogenesis of both types of block. Hypertension predisposes to the development of bundle branch block, primarily by potentiating the development of generalized myocardial fibrosis, sclerosis of the left side of the cardiac skeleton or primary sclerodegenerative changes of the bundle branches themselves, by predisposing to the development of coronary atherosclerosis with resultant ischemic damage to the bundle branches or by another as yet undefined process.
From the Coronary Artery Surgery Study20), on 15,609 patients with coronary artery disease, 522 were identified with bundle branch block. Patients with bundle branch block had both more extensive coronary artery disease and worse left ventricular function than those without. However, no particular location of coronary artery stenosis or left ventricular wall motion abnormality predominated in patients with bundle branch block, indicating that the bundle branch block was the result of infarction of the proximal conduction system.
The marked increase in mortality in patients with bundle branch block is seen only in combination with ischemic heart disease. In bundle branch block, the depolarization phase is, by definition, prolonged. Furthermore, the prolongation of the vulnerable repolarization phase in combination with an increased number of premature ventricular beats (secondary to ischemic heart disease) would expose the patient to an increased risk of sudden ventricular tachyarrhythmias6).
This theory is supported by electophysiological studies of patients with bifascicular block, in whom sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia was induced exclusively in patients with a previous myocardial infarction21). Furthermore, McAnulty et al.22) followed up 554 patients with bundle branch block and noticed an increased risk of sudden death due, not to bradyarrhythmia, but rather to tachyarrhythmias and myocardial infarction. Another explanation6) of the high mortality from acute myocardial infarction could be a degenerative cardiomyopathy less able to compensate for a sudden loss of functional myocardium during the course of an acute myocardial infarction.
It is not clearly why complete bundle branch block is associated with a higher risk of death. Pathological and physiological studies have shown this finding to correlate with fibrosis of the conduction system23–25), which may contribute to left ventricular contractile asynergy20) bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias26, 27).
In our study, advancing age, male, hypertension and DM were significantly associated with an increased risk of CRBBB. Advancing age and cardiac disease were associated with an increased risk of LBBB. Advancing age was associated with an increased risk of BBBB. The most potent risk factor of BBB was advancing age. Therefore, it is recommend that physicians have a high threshold for further investigating or referring patients with RBBB. Conversely, patients with LBBB have an increased risk of developing overt cardiac disease, and warrant closer consideration for more extensive investigation and follow-up.
In conclusion, bundle branch block correlates strongly to age, and is common in older age groups. These findings support the theory that bundle branch block is a marker of slowly progressing degenerative diseases.
REFERENCES
- 1.Fahy GJ, Pinski SL, Miller DP, McCabe N, Pye C, Walsh MJ, Robinson K. Natural history of isolated bundle branch block. Am J Cardiol. 1996;77:1185–1190. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(96)00160-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hardarson T, Arnarson A, Eliasson GJ, Palsson K, Eyjolfsson K, Sigfusson N. Left bundle branch block: prevalence, incidence, follow-up and outcome. Eur Heart J. 1987;8:1075–1079. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a062172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Thrainsdottir IS, Hardarson T, Thorgeirsson G, Sigvaldason H, Sigfusson N. The epidemiology of right bundle branch block and its association with cardiovascular morbidity: the Reykjavik Study. Eur Heart J. 1993;14:1590–1596. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/14.12.1590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ostrander LD, Jr, Brandt RL, Kjelsberg MO, Epstein FH. Electrocardiographic findings among the adult population of a total natural community, Tecumseh, Michigan. Circulation. 1965;31:888–898. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.31.6.888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kreger BE, Anderson KM, Kannel WB. Prevalence of intraventricular block in the general population. Am Heart J. 1989;117:903–910. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(89)90630-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Eriksson P, Hansson PO, Eriksson H, Dellborg M. Bundle branch block in a general population: the study of men born in 1913. Circulation. 1998;98:2494–2500. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.98.22.2494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Melgarejo-Moreno A, Galcera-Tomas J, Garcia-Alberola A, Valdes-Chavarri M, Castillo-Soria F, Mira-Sanchez E, Gil-Sanchez J, Allegue-Gallego J. Incidence, clinical characteristics, and prognostic significance of right bundle branch block in acute myocardial infarction: a study in the thrombolytic era. Circulation. 1997;96:1139–1144. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.96.4.1139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Newby KH, Pisano E, Krucoff MW, Green C, Natale A. Incidence and clinical relevance of the occurrence of bundle branch block in patients treated with thrombolytic therapy. Circulation. 1996;94:2424–2428. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.94.10.2424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hesse B, Diaz LA, Snader CE, Blackstone EH, Lauer MS. Complete bundle branch block as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality: report of 7,073 patients referred for nuclear exercise testing. Am J Med. 2001;110:253–259. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(00)00713-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure The sixth report of the Joint National Committee (JNC-VI) on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:2413–2446. doi: 10.1001/archinte.157.21.2413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1183–1197. doi: 10.2337/diacare.20.7.1183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.The Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) JAMA. 2001;285:2486–2497. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.19.2486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hindman MC, Wagner GS, JaRo M, Atkins JM, Scheiman MM, DeSanctis RW, Hutter AH, Jr, Yeatman L, Rubenfire M, Pujura C, Rubin M, Morris JJ. The clinical significance of bundle branch block complicating acute myocardial infarction: I. clinical characteristics, hospital mortality, and one-year follow-up. Circulation. 1978;58:679–688. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.58.4.679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ricou F, Nicod P, Gilpin E, Henning H, Ross J., Jr Influence of right bundle branch block on short- and long-term survival after acute anterior myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:858–863. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(91)90865-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hod H, Goldbourt U, Behar S. Bundle branch block in acute Q wave inferior myocardial infarction: a high risk subgroup of inferior myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J. 1995;16:471–477. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a060938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lev M. The pathology of complete atrioventricular block. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1964;41:317–326. doi: 10.1016/s0033-0620(64)80005-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Lenegre J. Etiology and pathology of bilateral bundle branch block in relation to complete heart block. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1964;55:409–444. doi: 10.1016/s0033-0620(64)80001-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Rotman M, Triebwasser JH. A clinical and follow-up study of right and left bundle branch block. Circulation. 1975;51:477–484. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.51.3.477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Schneider JF, Thomas HE, Jr, Sorlie P, Kreger BE, McNamara PM, Kannel WB. Comparative features of newly acquired left and right bundle branch block in the general population. Am J Cardiol. 1981;47:931–940. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(81)90196-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Freedman RA, Alderman EL, Sheffield LT, Saporito M, Fisher LD. Bundle branch block in patients with chronic artery disease: angiographic correlates and prognostic significance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;10:73–80. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(87)80162-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Englund A, Bergfeldt L, Rehnqvist N, Astrom H, Rosenqvist M. Diagnostic value of programmed ventricular stimulation in patients with bifascicular block: a prospective study of patients with and without syncope. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:1508–1515. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(95)00354-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.McAnulty JH, Rahimtoola SH, Murphy E, DeMots H, Ritzmann L, Kanarek PE, Kauffman S. Natural history of “high-risk” bundle branch block. N Engl J Med. 1982;307:137–143. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198207153070301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Krongrad E, Hefler SE, Bowman FO, Jr, Malm JR, Hoffman BF. Further observations on the etiology of a right bundle branch block pattern following right ventriculotomy. Circulation. 1974;50:1105–1113. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.50.6.1105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Horowitz LN, Alexander JA, Edmunds LH., Jr Postoperative right bundle branch block: identification of three levels of block. Circulation. 1980;62:319–328. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.62.2.319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Fukuda K, Nakata Y, Okada R, Takagi T. Histopathophysiologic study on the conduction system of complete right bundle branch block with reference to configuration of QRS complex. Jpn Heart J. 1979;20:831–844. doi: 10.1536/ihj.20.831. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Fisch C. Role of the electrocardiogram in identifying the patient at increased risk for sudden death. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985;5(Suppl 6):6B–8B. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(85)80517-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Denes P, Dhingra RC, Wu D, Chuquimia R, Amat-Y-Leon F, Wyndham C, Rosen KM. H-V interval in patients with bifascicuiar block (right bundle branch block and left anterior hemiblock): clinical, electrocardiographic and electrophysiologic correlations. Am J Cardiol. 1975;35:23–29. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(75)90554-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]