CLINICAL STUDY
Treatment and outcomes of left bundle-branch block patients with myocardial infarction who present without chest pain
Michael G. Shlipak, MD, MPH* ,
Alan S. Go, MD ,
Paul D. Frederick, MPH, MBA ,
Judith Malmgren, PhD ,
Hal V. Barron, MD, FACC ||,
John G. Canto, MD, MSPH, FACC¶ for the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 Investigators
* San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA
University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
the Northern California Kaiser Division of Research, Oakland, CaliforniaUSA
the University of Washington Clinical Research Coordinating Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
|| the Division of Medical Affairs, Genentech, San Francisco, California, USA
¶ the University of Alabama Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Manuscript received September 13, 1999;
revised manuscript received March 16, 2000,
accepted April 19, 2000.
Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Michael G. Shlipak, General Internal Medicine Section, VA Medical Center (111A1), San Francisco, California 94121 shlip{at}itsa.ucsf.edu
OBJECTIVES
We sought to determine the importance of chest pain on presentation as a predictor of in-hospital treatment and mortality in myocardial infarction (MI) patients with left bundle-branch block (LBBB).
BACKGROUND
Left bundle-branch block patients have a high mortality after MI but are unlikely to receive reperfusion therapy despite evidence from clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of thrombolytic therapy. Nearly half of MI patients with LBBB present without chest pain.
METHODS
We studied the clinical features, treatment and in-hospital survival of 29,585 patients with LBBB enrolled in the National Registry of MI 2 (June 1994 through March 1998). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the independent effect of chest pain on reperfusion decisions and in-hospital mortality.
RESULTS
Left bundle-branch block patients with chest pain were greater than five-fold more likely to receive reperfusion therapy (13.6% vs. 2.6%) than LBBB patients without chest pain; they were also more likely to receive aspirin, beta-adrenergic blocking agents, heparin and nitrates (all p < 0.0001). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was 18% in patients with chest pain and 27% in patients without chest pain. Adjusting for patient characteristics reduced the odds ratio associated with the absence of chest pain from 1.47 (95% confidence interval: 1.41 to 1.54) to 1.21 (95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 1.30). The remainder of the mortality difference was caused by the undertreatment of patients without chest pain, particularly the low utilization of aspirin and beta-blockers.
CONCLUSIONS
Left bundle-branch block patients with MI who present without chest pain are less likely to receive optimal therapy and are at increased risk of death. Prompt recognition and treatment of this high-risk subgroup should improve survival.
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | ACE | = angiotensin-converting enzyme | | CABG | = coronary artery bypass graft surgery | | CI | = confidence interval | | ECG | = electrocardiogram | | LBBB | = left bundle-branch block | | MI | = myocardial infarction | | NRMI-2 | = National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 | | OR | = odds ratio | | PTCA | = percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty |
|
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. Olshansky
Wide QRS, Narrow QRS: What's the Difference?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
July 19, 2005;
46(2):
317 - 319.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
F. Mauri, M. G. Franzosi, A. P. Maggioni, E. Santoro, and L. Santoro
Clinical value of 12-lead electrocardiography to predict the long-term prognosis of gissi-1 patients
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
May 15, 2002;
39(10):
1594 - 1600.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
LBBB in Patients with MI Is Undertreated
Journal Watch Emergency Medicine,
November 15, 2000;
2000(1115):
4 - 4.
[Full Text]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. C. Friesinger II and R. F. Smith
Old age, left bundle branch block and acute myocardial infarction: a vexing and lethal combination
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
September 1, 2000;
36(3):
713 - 716.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|