Risk Factors and Outcomes of Postprocedure Complete Left Bundle Branch Block after Transcatheter Device Closure of Perimembranous Ventricular Septal Defect
Diandong Jiang,Youfei Fan,Bo Han,Lijian Zhao,Yingchun Yi,Jianjun Zhang,Jianli Lv,Jing Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.120.009823
2021-01-01
Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions
Abstract:HomeCirculation: Cardiovascular InterventionsVol. 14, No. 2Risk Factors and Outcomes of Postprocedure Complete Left Bundle Branch Block After Transcatheter Device Closure of Perimembranous Ventricular Septal Defect Free AccessLetterPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyRedditDiggEmail Jump toFree AccessLetterPDF/EPUBRisk Factors and Outcomes of Postprocedure Complete Left Bundle Branch Block After Transcatheter Device Closure of Perimembranous Ventricular Septal Defect Diandong Jiang, MD, Youfei Fan, MD, PhD, Bo Han, MD, PhD, Lijian Zhao, MD, Yingchun Yi, MD, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, Jianli Lv, MD and Jing Wang, MD Diandong JiangDiandong Jiang Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. Search for more papers by this author , Youfei FanYoufei Fan Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. Search for more papers by this author , Bo HanBo Han Correspondence to: Bo Han, MD, PhD, Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, No. 324 Jingwu Rd, Jinan 250012, China. Email E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5286-372X Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. Search for more papers by this author , Lijian ZhaoLijian Zhao Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. Search for more papers by this author , Yingchun YiYingchun Yi Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. Search for more papers by this author , Jianjun ZhangJianjun Zhang Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. Search for more papers by this author , Jianli LvJianli Lv Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. Search for more papers by this author and Jing WangJing Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0639-6419 Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. Search for more papers by this author Originally published16 Feb 2021https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009823Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2021;14:e009823Transcatheter closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects (pmVSDs) have been shown to be an alternative to conventional surgical repair with acceptable mortality and morbidity.1–3 Conduction system abnormalities are not rare and have been well described.2–4 As limited information is available regarding the occurrence of complete left bundle branch block (cLBBB) after defect closure, the present study was designed to assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of cLBBB after transcatheter pmVSD closure in children.From June 2002 to June 2019, 1014 children, who successfully underwent transcatheter closure of a pmVSD in our center, were reviewed in this retrospectively study, with a median follow-up of 48 months (range: 6 months to 17 years). The inclusion criteria were the following: age ≥2 years or weight ≥10 kg, and hemodynamically significant pmVSD (cardiomegaly on chest X-ray; left atrial enlargement; left ventricular [LV] volume overload). The devices together with procedure have been described previously.1,2,5 This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of our Institution. All patients’ guardians provided written informed consent. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.Postprocedure arrhythmia occurred in 272 cases (26.8%), with cLBBB in 21 (2.07%) and complete atrioventricular block in 4 cases (0.4%). No patient with cLBBB progressed to complete atrioventricular block during follow-up. Complete LBBB occurring within 7 days of the procedure was classified as early-onset (19 cases) and that occurring after 7 days as late-onset cLBBB (2 cases, both 6 months after the procedure).When the cLBBB was diagnosed, intravenous dexamethasone (0.5–1.0 mg/kg daily, maximum 10 mg) was administered for 3 to 5 days and tapered gradually over the following 2 weeks. Among the early-onset patients, 16 cases had recovered normal conduction within 2 weeks after corticosteroid therapy, 2 cases had restoration of normal conduction after surgical occluder removal (together with defect repair) at 6 and 13 days after the procedure, and 1 case had persistent cLBBB. Two cases recurred from the early-onset cohort at 1 and 6 months post-procedure, with one of the cases recovering after surgical removal 40 days after the procedure. Both late-onset cases had persistent cLBBB. Consequently, a total of 4 patients had persistent cLBBB.These patients were followed up for a median 45 (range: 6–144) months, with 1 case who had return to normal conduction at 4 days after procedure, lost to follow-up after 2 years. One late-onset case presented with symptoms of reduced exercise capacity, and on transthoracic echocardiography had an increased LV end-diastolic diameter of 51 mm (z-score 4.2) and a progressive reduction in LV ejection fraction to 40%, 58 months after the diagnosis of cLBBB. Because of a poor response to drug therapy (digoxin, furosemide, spironolactone, captopril, and carvedilol) and New York Heart Association functional class III, and a QRS duration of 162 ms, the patient underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy at the age of 8 years. LV end-diastolic diameter and LV ejection fraction returned to normal 4 months after cardiac resynchronization therapy. The remaining 3 persistent cases were asymptomatic, the transthoracic echocardiograph only showing minor signs of interventricular dyssynchrony with normal LV end-diastolic diameters and LV ejection fractions.As shown in the Table, patients using an eccentric occluder (OR, 3.29, P=0.018 [95% CI, 1.23–8.78]) had the highest incidence of cLBBB, and an oversized thin-waist occluder was observed to be associated with cLBBB. The patients with longer QRS durations appeared more likely to recur and less likely to restore normal conduction (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively).The incidence of cLBBB after device closure of a pmVSD was relatively low, and most of the early-onset blocks appeared to recover to normal conduction within 2 weeks. High-dose corticosteroids seemed to be effective for reversing most early cLBBB in our cohort (n=16/19). We did note that rarely after the procedure, cLBBB can recur or occur at a later date. Despite prompt corticosteroid therapy, restoration of normal conduction in recurrent and late-onset cases is rare. In this study, 3 cases underwent surgical occluder removal, and normal conduction was restored. The possible reason was that surgical device removal might fundamentally relieve the compression of occluder on the conduction bundle. In our experience, steroids should be given for 2 weeks after the occurrence of cLBBB. If the conduction system did not recover in 2 weeks, surgical occluder removal may be considered. Wang et al3 described patients using large symmetrical occluders were more prone to cLBBB. In our cases, comparisons performed in patients using different types of devices found that using eccentric and oversized thin-waist occluder was associated with an increased risk for cLBBB.Some of the variables may not reach statistical significance because case numbers were small (eg, persistent cLBBB), and hence, the study was not adequately powered to assess their contribution to cLBBB.In conclusion, the outcome of postprocedural cLBBB was favorable. Eccentric occluders and oversized thin-waist occluders should be avoided.Table. Risk Factors for Occurrence, Persistence, and Recurrence of Complete Left Bundle Branch BlockcLBBB group (n=21)Non-cLBBB group (n=993)P valueUnivariateOR (95% CI)P valueAge, y4.05±1.484.62±2.740.3390.91 (0.74–1.11)0.341Weight, kg16.00±4.3618.92±8.800.1300.93 (0.85–1.02)0.126Sex0.811 Male11 (52.4)494 (49.7)11 Female10 (47.6)499 (50.3)0.90 (0.38–2.14)0.811Defect diameter on angio, mm4.57±3.334.46±2.990.8731.01 (0.88–1.16)0.872Device diameter, mm7.10±2.346.41±2.110.1401.14 (0.96–1.35)0.142Device type0.047 Symmetrical10 (47.6)662 (66.6)11 Eccentric7 (33.3)141 (14.2)3.29 (1.23–8.78)0.018 Thin-waist3 (14.3)85 (8.6)2.34 (0.63–8.66)0.204 ADO II and others1 (4.8)105 (10.6)0.63 (0.08–4.98)0.662Symmetrical occluderEccentric occluderThin-waist occludercLBBB group (n=10)Non-cLBBB group (n=662)P valuecLBBBgroup (n=7)Non-cLBBB group (n=141)P valuecLBBB group (n=3)Non-cLBBB group (n=85)P valueAge, years4.20 ± 1.534.56 ± 2.670.6724.14 ± 1.504.96 ± 3.260.5132.70 ± 0.365.14 ± 2.930.156Weight, kg15.40 ± 4.0018.62 ± 8.450.22917.50 ± 5.7520.42 ± 11.100.49213.83 ± 0.2920.37 ± 9.940.260Sex1.0000.9421.000 Male5 (50.0)322 (48.6)4 (57.1)68 (48.2)2 (66.7)54 (63.5) Female5 (50.0)342 (51.4)3 (42.9)73 (51.8)1 (33.3)31 (36.5)Defect diameter on angio, mm4.03 ± 2.583.94 ± 1.890.8832.94 ± 0.573.77 ± 1.700.20211.00 ± 2.0011.72 ± 2.250.588Device diameter, mm7.00 ± 2.836.42 ± 2.060.3787.00 ± 1.737.30 ± 2.500.7518.67 ± 1.166.07 ± 1.710.011Device / defect1.92 ± 0.381.75 ± 0.380.1642.39 ± 0.432.07 ± 0.520.1160.80 ± 0.080.53 ± 0.140.002Device / weight0.46 ± 0.140.40 ± 0.200.3000.41 ± 0.050.42 ± 0.200.8630.63 ± 0.080.34 ± 0.150.001Recovery group (n=16)Persistence group (n=4)P valueNonrecurrence group (n=15)Recurrence group (n=3)P valueAge, years4.31 ± 1.412.83 ± 0.390.0574.46 ± 1.322.67 ± 0.610.038Weight, kg16.13 ± 4.9415.25 ± 1.890.73616.53 ± 4.8213.00 ± 2.650.243Sex0.0940.138 Male6 (37.5)4 (100)5 (33.3)3 (100) Female10 (62.5)010 (66.7)0Defect diameter on angio, mm3.75 ± 2.488.40 ± 4.300.0093.83 ± 2.546.03 ± 6.030.594Device type0.2800.554 Symmetric8 (50.0)1 (25.0)7 (46.6)1 (33.4) Eccentric6 (37.5)1 (25.0)6 (40.0)1 (33.3) Thin-waist1 (6.25)2 (50.0)1 (6.7)1 (33.3) ADO II and others1 (6.25)01 (6.7)0Onset time of cLBBB post-procedure, days3.06 ± 1.3491.75 ± 101.910.1803.13 ± 1.3661.33 ± 102.770.430Recovery time of cLBBB post-procedure, days5.67 ± 4.0113.67 ± 12.420.381QRS duration, ms141.13 ± 12.61161.0 ± 2.58<0.001139.33 ± 10.73164.0 ± 4.000.001Data presented as n (%) or mean#129;}SD. cLBBB group, patients with new-onset cLBBB post-procedure; non-cLBBB group, patients without new-onset cLBBB post-procedure; recovery group, patients with cLBBB who had restored normal conduction at the last follow-up; persistence group, patients who had persistent cLBBB at the last follow-up; recurrence group, patients with cLBBB who initially returned to normal conduction but developed cLBBB again; nonrecurrence group, patients with cLBBB who always maintained normal conduction after recovery. Other closure devices included patent ductus arteriosus occluder and vascular plug device. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. ADO II indicates amplatzer duct occluder II; cLBBB, complete left bundle branch block; and OR, odds ratio.Sources of FundingThis study was supported by the Key Research and Development Plan of Shandong Province (2016GSF201101); Project of Medicine and Healthcare Sci-tech Development Plan of Shandong Province (2016WS0441); and the Special Expert of Taishan Scholars (No. ts201511099).Disclosures None.FootnotesFor Sources of Funding and Disclosures, see page 238.Correspondence to: Bo Han, MD, PhD, Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, No. 324 Jingwu Rd, Jinan 250012, China. Email hanb[email protected]comReferences1. Yang J, Yang L, Wan Y, Zuo J, Zhang J, Chen W, Li J, Sun L, Yu S, Liu J, et al.. Transcatheter device closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects: mid-term outcomes.Eur Heart J. 2010; 31:2238–2245. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq240CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Bai Y, Xu XD, Li CY, Zhu JQ, Wu H, Chen SP, Chen F, You XH, Zhao XX, Qin YW. Complete atrioventricular block after percutaneous device closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defect: a single-center experience on 1046 cases.Heart Rhythm. 2015; 12:2132–2140. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.014CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Wang C, Zhou K, Luo C, Shao S, Shi X, Li Y, Wei L, Yan S, Liu X, Hua Y. Complete left bundle branch block after transcatheter closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defect.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 12:1631–1633. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.04.043CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Yang R, Kong XQ, Sheng YH, Zhou L, Xu D, Yong YH, Sun W, Zhang H, Cao KJ. Risk factors and outcomes of post-procedure heart blocks after transcatheter device closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defect.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5:422–427. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.01.015CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Koneti NR, Sreeram N, Penumatsa RR, Arramraj SK, Karunakar V, Trieschmann U. Transcatheter retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects in children with the Amplatzer duct occluder II device.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60:2421–2422. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.08.1004CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails February 2021Vol 14, Issue 2Article InformationMetrics © 2021 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009823PMID: 33591822 Originally publishedFebruary 16, 2021 KeywordsX-raydexamethasonerisk factorincidencecardiomegalyPDF download Advertisement SubjectsArrhythmias