Health Dictionary Find a Doctor

Left bundle branch block

For patient information click here

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]; Raviteja Guddeti, M.B.B.S. [3]; Aarti Narayan, M.B.B.S [4]

Synonyms and keywords: LBBB

Overview

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]

Overview

Left bundle branch block is a cardiac conduction abnormality seen on the electrocardiogram (ECG) whereby there is an impairment of transmission of the cardiac electrical impulse along the fibers of the left main bundle branch, or both the left anterior fascicle and left posterior fascicle. This conduction disturbance is characterized by wide (greater than or equal to 0.12 seconds) QRS complexes. In this condition, activation of the left ventricle is delayed, which results in the left ventricle contracting later than the right ventricle.

Epidemiology and Demographics

LBBB is uncommon among patients under 50 years of age (<0.5%). It occurs in 6% to 8% of patients over the age of 50.

Diagnosis

Physical Examination

On examination of the cardiovascular system, a paradoxical split of the second heart sound may be heard.

Treatment

Management Strategy

Asymptomatic patients with isolated left bundle branch block and no underlying heart disease require no treatment. Routine follow-up is required in such patients. In symptomatic patients treatment is directed at the underlying cause of left bundle branch block, such as ST elevation myocardial infarction. Patients withsyncope and LBBB may have a rhythm disturbance that requires a pacemaker. Given the dys-ynchrony that occurs with left ventricular contractility,cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure patients may be of benefit.

References

Template:WH Template:WS

Historical Perspective

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; J. Adrian Gutierrez [2]

The history of bundle branch block research illustrates the evolving understanding of cardiac electrophysiology. As early as 1909, researchers Eppinger and Rothberger were conducting experiments in dogs in which they injected silver nitrate to destroy portions of the myocardium and induce electrocardiographic changes. These studies provided some of the earliest evidence of the importance of the cardiac conduction system. They observed that extensive destruction of the ventricular free wall produced relatively little change on the ECG, whereas small lesions in the interventricular septum resulted in significant electrocardiographic abnormalities due to injury of the bundle branches [1]

In 1910, Eppinger and Stoerk described patients with bundle branch block who exhibited a positive QRS complex in lead I and negative complexes in leads II and III. Based on extrapolation from canine experiments, they interpreted this pattern as right bundle branch block. Similar conclusions were later supported by Lewis, who published what is now recognized as one of the earliest electrocardiograms of left bundle branch block but also misclassified it as right bundle branch block. These interpretations remained widely accepted until human mapping studies by Barker and colleagues in 1929 demonstrated that the pattern actually represented left bundle branch block. [1]

In 1979, Schneider and colleagues analyzed newly acquired LBBB in the Framingham Heart Study. They found that LBBB was commonly associated with hypertension, cardiomegaly, coronary heart disease, and heart failure, with only 11% of affected individuals remaining free of cardiovascular abnormalities during follow-up. These findings helped establish LBBB as a marker of underlying cardiovascular disease and adverse prognosis rather than a benign electrocardiographic finding. [2]



References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Flowers NC (March 1987). “Left bundle branch block: a continuously evolving concept”. J Am Coll Cardiol. 9 (3): 684–97. doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(87)80065-7. PMID 2950157.
  2. Schneider JF, Thomas HE, Kreger BE, McNamara PM, Kannel WB (March 1979). “Newly acquired left bundle-branch block: the Framingham study”. Ann Intern Med. 90 (3): 303–10. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-90-3-303. PMID 154870.
Classification

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]; Raviteja Guddeti, M.B.B.S. [3]; Aarti Narayan, M.B.B.S [4]

Classification

Classification Based on Duration

New Left Bundle Branch Block

New LBBB is defined as the presence of a new left bundle branch block and:[1] [2]

  1. A prior ECG with normal QRS duration (<110 ms) within 24 hours before the LBBB tracing without T-wave abnormalities.
  2. Acute-onset illness with LBBB on the admission tracing resolving within 24 hours without T-wave abnormalities on the subsequent narrow QRS tracings (to exclude LBBB lasting more than 24 hours) in patients with no history of LBBB.

Old Left Bundle Branch Block

An old LBBB is defined as an[3] LBBB that has existed for more than 24 hours (by prior tracings or reports in the electronic medical record).

Left Bundle Branch Block of Unknown Duration

The LBBB duration is unknown on tracings obtained within the first 24 hours of admission in which there is not any prior EKG information.[4]

Classification Based on Extent of Block

Another classification system commonly used for LBBB is as follows:

Complete LBBB

The criteria to diagnose a complete left bundle branch block on an electrocardiogram includes the following:

  1. The heart rhythm must be supraventricular in origin. A wide QRS complex that is not preceded by P waves would not qualify.
  2. The QRS duration must be greater than or equal to 120 milliseconds.
  3. There should be a QS or rS complex in lead V1.
  4. There should be a monophasic R wave in lead I and lead V6.

Incomplete LBBB

The criteria for diagnosing an incomplete LBBB include:

  1. QRS duration between 110 and 119 ms in adults, between 90 and 100 ms in children 8 to 16 years of age, and between 80 and 90 ms in children less than 8 years of age.
  2. Presence of left ventricular hypertrophy pattern.
  3. R peak time greater than 60 ms in leads V4, V5, and V6.
  4. Absence of Q wave in leads I, V5, and V6.
  5. ST and T wave displacement opposite to the major deflection of the QRS complex.[5][6][7][8]

References

  1. Shvilkin A, Bojovic B, Vajdic B, Gussak I, Ho KK, Zimetbaum P, Josephson ME. Vectorcardiographic and electrocardiographic criteria to distinguish new and old left bundle branch block. Heart Rhythm 2010;7:1085–1092.
  2. Shvilkin A, Bojovic B, Vajdic B; et al. (2010). “Vectorcardiographic and electrocardiographic criteria to distinguish new and old left bundle branch block”. Heart Rhythm : the Official Journal of the Heart Rhythm Society. 7 (8): 1085–92. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.05.024. PMID 20493964. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. Shvilkin A, Bojovic B, Vajdic B, Gussak I, Ho KK, Zimetbaum P, Josephson ME. Vectorcardiographic and electrocardiographic criteria to distinguish new and old left bundle branch block. Heart Rhythm 2010;7:1085–1092.
  4. Shvilkin A, Bojovic B, Vajdic B, Gussak I, Ho KK, Zimetbaum P, Josephson ME. Vectorcardiographic and electrocardiographic criteria to distinguish new and old left bundle branch block. Heart Rhythm 2010;7:1085–1092.
  5. Sunaguchi M, Imai H, Shigemi K; et al. (1998). “[Intraoperative transient incomplete left bundle branch block in a patient with left axis deviation in pre-anesthetic electrocardiogram]”. Masui. the Japanese Journal of Anesthesiology (in Japanese). 47 (11): 1362–5. PMID 9852702. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  6. Barrett PA, Yamaguchi I, Jordan JL, Mandel WJ (1981). “Electrophysiological factors of left bundle-branch block”. British Heart Journal. 45 (5): 594–601. PMC 482570. PMID 7236466. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  7. Murata K, Kuramochi M, Tanaka T, Terasawa F (1975). “Vectorcardiograms of electrocardiographic incomplete left bundle branch block”. Japanese Circulation Journal. 39 (1): 57–64. PMID 1127828. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  8. Piotrowicz R, Dabrowski A (1985). “Clinical significance of the pattern of incomplete left bundle branch block with bifascicular block”. Cor Et Vasa. 27 (1): 47–53. PMID 3995993.

Template:WS Template:WH

Pathophysiology

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Raviteja Guddeti, M.B.B.S. [2]; Aarti Narayan, M.B.B.S [3]

Please help WikiDoc by adding content here. It’s easy! Click here to learn about editing.

Pathophysiology

Normal Conduction

  1. The normal cardiac conduction proceeds in a way so as to allow time for the atrium to relax during atrial diastole.
  2. The electrical impulse generated in the SA node travels through the internodal pathways towards the AV node.
  3. The conduction through the AV node is slowed down as it travels through it. This decrease in velocity of conduction allows time for the atrium to contract ahead of the ventricle so that the blood from the atria can fill up the ventricles through the atrio-ventricular valves.
  4. As the impulse flows through the compact AV node, it rapidly conducts through the ventricular myocardial cells. Once the depolarization is complete, the ventricle relaxes during diastole in preparation for the next impulse.
Conduction system of the heart




























Anatomy

  • The conduction system of the heart consists of specialized cells designed to conduct electrical impulse faster than the surrounding myocardial cells.
  • Anatomically, the AV node is divided into three regions as follows:
  • The left bundle branch penetrates the membranous portion of the interventricular septum and divides into several smaller branches. Parts of the left bundle branch include a pre-divisional segment, anterior fascicle/hemibundle and posterior fascicle/hemibundle. Rarely a median fascicle is present in some hearts.
    • The anterior fascicle supplies the anterior papillary muscle and the Purkinje network of the antero-lateral surface of the left ventricle.
    • The posterior fascicle supplies the posterior papillary muscle and the Purkinje network of the postero-inferior surface of the left ventricle.
    • Left bundle branch receives its blood supply from left anterior descending artery.
Structure of the heart’s conduction system

















Pathophysiology

  • Unlike right bundle branch block (RBBB), left bundle branch block completely modifies the way of depolarization of the conduction system of the heart. In LBBB the activation of the interventricular septum is from right to left due to uninterrupted conduction in the RBB.
  • Then the electrical impulse propagates inferiorly to the left resulting in delayed depolarization and activation of the left ventricle especially the left lateral wall.[1]
  • In LBBB the right to left activation of the septum causes a small negative deflection (Q wave) in lead V1 and a positive deflection (R wave) in lead V6. Right ventricle depolarizes earlier than the left ventricle giving an R wave in lead V1 and an S wave in lead V6. Subsequent delayed depolarization of the left ventricle results in an S wave in lead V1 and another R wave in lead V6.

References

  1. Francia P, Balla C, Paneni F, Volpe M (2007). “Left bundle-branch block–pathophysiology, prognosis, and clinical management”. Clinical Cardiology. 30 (3): 110–5. doi:10.1002/clc.20034. PMID 17385703. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Template:WH Template:WS

Causes

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]; Raviteja Guddeti, M.B.B.S. [3]; Aarti Narayan, M.B.B.S [4]; Ogheneochuko Ajari, MB.BS, MS [5]

Overview

Left bundle branch block is a cardiac conduction seen on the electrocardiogram (ECG) whereby there is an impairment of transmission of the cardiac electrical impulse along the fibers of the left main bundle branch, or both the left anterior fascicle and the left posterior fascicle. Most causes of LBBB are the result of some form of cardiac disease but LBBB is also known to be associated with non cardiac causes.

Causes

Life Threatening Causes

Life-threatening causes include conditions which may result in death or permanent disability within 24 hours if left untreated.

Common Causes

Causes by Organ System

Cardiovascular Alcoholic cardiomyopathy, aortic insufficiency, aortic stenosis, aortic valve replacement, Chagas disease, coronary artery disease, dilated cardiomyopathy, endocarditis, exercise-induced LBBB, heart failure, hemochromatosis, hyperkalemia, hypertension, hypertensive cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM), ischemic cardiomyopathy, ischemic heart disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC), left ventricular outflow tract surgery, Lenegre’s disease, Lev’s disease, lyme disease, myocardial infarction, myocardial ischemia, myocarditis, postpartum cardiomyopathy, restrictive cardiomyopathy, rheumatic fever with aortic valve involvement, sarcoidosis, septal myomectomy, TAVI, valvular heart disease
Chemical / poisoning No underlying causes
Dermatologic Lyme disease, rheumatic fever with aortic valve involvement, sarcoidosis, scleroderma
Drug Side Effect Digoxin toxicity, Pramipexole
Ear Nose Throat No underlying causes
Endocrine Hemochromatosis
Environmental No underlying causes
Gastroenterologic Chagas disease, hemochromatosis, scleroderma
Genetic Hemochromatosis
Hematologic Hemochromatosis
Iatrogenic No underlying causes
Infectious Disease Chagas disease, endocarditis, lyme disease
Musculoskeletal / Ortho Hemochromatosis, scleroderma
Neurologic Chagas disease, hemochromatosis, lyme disease
Nutritional / Metabolic Hyperkalemia
Obstetric/Gynecologic No underlying causes
Oncologic No underlying causes
Opthalmologic Chagas disease, hypertension, sarcoidosis
Overdose / Toxicity Digoxin toxicity
Psychiatric No underlying causes
Pulmonary Scleroderma
Renal / Electrolyte Hyperkalemia, hypertension
Rheum / Immune / Allergy Rheumatic fever with aortic valve involvement, sarcoidosis, scleroderma
Sexual No underlying causes
Trauma No underlying causes
Urologic No underlying causes
Dental No underlying causes
Miscellaneous Exercise-induced LBBB, sarcoidosis

Causes of LBBB in Alphabetical Order

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Imanishi R, Seto S, Ichimaru S, Nakashima E, Yano K, Akahoshi M (2006). “Prognostic significance of incident complete left bundle branch block observed over a 40-year period”. The American Journal of Cardiology. 98 (5): 644–8. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.03.044. PMID 16923453. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. Nakajima M, Aomi S, Matsuda N, Kasanuki H, Endo M, Kurosawa H (2003). “Simultaneous biventricular pacemaker implantation for a surgical case of aortic regurgitation with severe left ventricular dysfunction and left bundle branch block”. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 125 (5): 1167–9. doi:10.1067/mtc.2003.304. PMID 12771896. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. Wieslander B, Wu KC, Loring Z; et al. (2013). “Localization of myocardial scar in patients with cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block using electrocardiographic Selvester QRS scoring”. Journal of Electrocardiology. doi:10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2013.02.006. PMID 23540937. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. 4.0 4.1 Arce M, VAN Grieken J, Femenía F, Arrieta M, McIntyre WF, Baranchuk A (2012). “Permanent pacing in patients with Chagas’ disease”. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology : PACE. 35 (12): 1494–7. doi:10.1111/pace.12013. PMID 23078655. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. Grimm W (2012). “Prophylactic implantable defibrillators in dilated cardiomyopathy”. Herz. 37 (8): 859–66. doi:10.1007/s00059-012-3687-9. PMID 23052902. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  6. Foell D, Jung BA, Germann E; et al. (2013). “Segmental myocardial velocities in dilated cardiomyopathy with and without left bundle branch block”. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging : JMRI. 37 (1): 119–26. doi:10.1002/jmri.23803. PMID 22987362. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  7. Stein R, Ho M, Oliveira CM; et al. (2011). “Exercise-induced left bundle branch block: prevalence and prognosis”. Arquivos Brasileiros De Cardiologia. 97 (1): 26–32. PMID 21552647. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  8. Iscove NN, Yan XQ (1990). “Precursors (pre-CFCmulti) of multilineage hemopoietic colony-forming cells quantitated in vitro. Uniqueness of IL-1 requirement, partial separation from pluripotential colony-forming cells, and correlation with long term reconstituting cells in vivo”. Journal of Immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950). 145 (1): 190–5. PMID 2358672. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. Kutyifa V, Pouleur AC, Knappe D; et al. (2013). “Dyssynchrony and the risk of ventricular arrhythmias”. JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging. 6 (4): 432–44. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2012.12.008. PMID 23579010. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  10. Cinca J, Mendez A, Puig T; et al. (2013). “Differential clinical characteristics and prognosis of intraventricular conduction defects in patients with chronic heart failure”. European Journal of Heart Failure. doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hft042. PMID 23512097. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  11. Hanson EH, Shue PM, Palm-Leis A, Rowley RK (2001). “An aviator with cardiomyopathy and genetic susceptibility to hereditary hemochromatosis: a case report”. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 72 (10): 924–7. PMID 11601557. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  12. Rodrigues B, Correia E, Ferreira Santos L; et al. (2013). “Left bundle branch block, atrioventricular block, torsade de pointes and long QT syndrome: is this too much for a rare cardiomyopathy?”. Revista Portuguesa De Cardiologia : Orgao Oficial Da Sociedade Portuguesa De Cardiologia = Portuguese Journal of Cardiology : an Official Journal of the Portuguese Society of Cardiology. doi:10.1016/j.repc.2012.06.018. PMID 23618687. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  13. Gerecke B, Engberding R (2012). “[Isolated noncompaction cardiomyopathy with special emphasis on arrhythmia complications]”. Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie (in German). 23 (3): 201–10. doi:10.1007/s00399-012-0226-6. PMID 23008085. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  14. 14.0 14.1 Davies MJ (1976). “Pathology of chronic A-V Block”. Acta Cardiologica. Suppl 21: 19–30. PMID 1087803.
  15. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1990.tb04009.x/abstract
  16. Di Bella G, Florian A, Oreto L; et al. (2012). “Electrocardiographic findings and myocardial damage in acute myocarditis detected by cardiac magnetic resonance”. Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society. 101 (8): 617–24. doi:10.1007/s00392-012-0433-5. PMID 22388951. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  17. Deluigi CC, Ong P, Hill S; et al. (2013). “ECG findings in comparison to cardiovascular MR imaging in viral myocarditis”. International Journal of Cardiology. 165 (1): 100–6. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.07.090. PMID 21885134. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  18. Kumar PD, Sahasranam KV, Chandrasekharan KG (1993). “Deceleration–dependent left bundle branch block in rheumatic carditis”. The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India. 41 (3): 171–2. PMID 8226603. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  19. Yahalom M, Jerushalmi J, Roguin N (1990). “Adult acute rheumatic fever: a rare case presenting with left bundle branch block”. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology : PACE. 13 (1): 123–7. PMID 1689027. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  20. Dechering DG, Kochhäuser S, Wasmer K; et al. (2013). “Electrophysiological characteristics of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in cardiac sarcoidosis versus arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy”. Heart Rhythm : the Official Journal of the Heart Rhythm Society. 10 (2): 158–64. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.10.019. PMID 23070261. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  21. Femenía F, Arce M, Arrieta M (2010). “[Systemic sclerosis complicated with syncope and complete AV block]”. Medicina (in Spanish; Castilian). 70 (5): 442–4. PMID 20920962.
  22. Urena M, Mok M, Serra V; et al. (2012). “Predictive factors and long-term clinical consequences of persistent left bundle branch block following transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a balloon-expandable valve”. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 60 (18): 1743–52. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.035. PMID 23040577. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  23. Colombo A, Latib A (2012). “Left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: inconsequential or a clinically important endpoint?”. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 60 (18): 1753–5. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.034. PMID 23040576. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Template:WH Template:WS

Differentiating Left Bundle Branch Block from other Diseases

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]

Please help WikiDoc by adding more content here. It’s easy! Click here to learn about editing

Differentiating Left Bundle Branch Block from other Diseases

LBBB must be differentiated from:

References

Template:WH Template:WS

Epidemiology and Demographics

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2] ; J. Adrian Gutierrez [3]

Overview

LBBB is uncommon among patients under 50 years of age (<0.5%). It occurs in 6% to 8% of patients over the age of 50.

Epidemiology and Demographics

Prevalence

Prevalence of LBBB in the general population ranges from 200 to 1100 per 100,000. [1]

Age

Prevalence of LBBB increases with age. Large prospective studies have reported a mean age at diagnosis of approximately 70 years in men and 68 years in women. [2]

Prevalence in heart failure populations

Among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), LBBB is a common conduction abnormality. In an analysis of the PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE trials, LBBB was present in 15.1% of 11,861 patients. [3]

References

  1. Chung MK, Patton KK, Lau CP, Dal Forno AR, Al-Khatib SM, Arora V, Birgersdotter-Green UM, Cha YM, Chung EH, Cronin EM, Curtis AB, Cygankiewicz I, Dandamudi G, Dubin AM, Ensch DP, Glotzer TV, Gold MR, Goldberger ZD, Gopinathannair R, Gorodeski EZ, Gutierrez A, Guzman JC, Huang W, Imrey PB, Indik JH, Karim S, Karpawich PP, Khaykin Y, Kiehl EL, Kron J, Kutyifa V, Link MS, Marine JE, Mullens W, Park SJ, Parkash R, Patete MF, Pathak RK, Perona CA, Rickard J, Schoenfeld MH, Seow SC, Shen WK, Shoda M, Singh JP, Slotwiner DJ, Sridhar AR, Srivatsa UN, Stecker EC, Tanawuttiwat T, Tang WH, Tapias CA, Tracy CM, Upadhyay GA, Varma N, Vernooy K, Vijayaraman P, Worsnick SA, Zareba W, Zeitler EP (September 2023). “2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure”. Heart Rhythm. 20 (9): e17–e91. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.03.1538. PMID 37283271 Check |pmid= value (help).
  2. Thein AS, Dixit S, Soliman EZ, Heckbert SR, Psaty BM, Gottdiener J, Marcus GM (August 2025). “Left Bundle Branch Block as a Risk Factor for Heart Failure”. JAMA Netw Open. 8 (8): e2525801. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.25801. PMID 40773196 Check |pmid= value (help).
  3. Kristensen SL, Castagno D, Shen L, Jhund PS, Docherty KF, Rørth R, Abraham WT, Desai AS, Dickstein K, Rouleau JL, Zile MR, Swedberg K, Packer M, Solomon SD, Køber L, McMurray JJ (December 2020). “Prevalence and incidence of intra-ventricular conduction delays and outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: insights from PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE”. Eur J Heart Fail. 22 (12): 2370–2379. doi:10.1002/ejhf.1972. PMID 32720404 Check |pmid= value (help).

Template:WH Template:WS

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]

Please help WikiDoc by adding more content here. It’s easy! Click here to learn about editing.

Complications

Prognosis

Age Under 50 Years

In asymptomatic patients under the age of 50, LBBB does not appear to be associated with an adverse prognosis.

Age Over 50 Years

It is notable that when LBBB is the presenting feature of an acute MI, the patient will not present with any chest pain half the time. Unfortunately, patients whose only manifestation of an acute MI is a left bundle branch block are less frequently treated with reperfusion therapy, and they have a worse prognosis.[2] A large Swedish study in men more than 45 years old with LBBB who were followed-up for over 25 years, showed both a much higher risk for developing high degree atrioventricular block and a markedly higher hazard ratio for all-cause mortality than individuals with right bundle branch block.[3]

Several clinical studies have shown that LBBB is associated with a grave prognosis in the presence of the following:

  • Coronary artery disease: In patients with known or suspected CAD, LBBB is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality. As compared with diabetics without LBBB and patients with isolated LBBB, patients with LBBB and type II diabetes have more severe and extensive CAD and advanced LV dysfunction.
  • Acute MI: Presence of LBBB in the setting of an acute MI can delay and complicate the diagnosis. Both short-term and long-term mortality have been shown to be higher in this association.
  • Heart failure: LBBB results in left ventricular dys-synchrony, which compromises the left ventricular function leading to heart failure. Studies have shown LBBB as an independent risk factor for an increase in all-cause mortality and sudden death at one year. These patients could be treated with cardiac resychronization therapy with biventricular pacing.

Exercise-induced LBBB is a transient finding seen in approximately 0.5% of patients undergoing an exercise stress test. In one study of 17,277 exercise stress tests it was found that all-cause mortality and major cardiac events were significantly higher in patients with exercise-induced LBBB.[4]

References

  1. Morris D, Mulvihill D, Lew WY (1987). “Risk of developing complete heart block during bedside pulmonary artery catheterization in patients with left bundle-branch block”. Archives of Internal Medicine. 147 (11): 2005–10. PMID 3675104. Retrieved 2012-10-17. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. Shlipak M, Go A, Frederick P, Malmgren J, Barron H, Canto J. Treatment and outcomes of left bundle-branch block patients with myocardial infarction who present without chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(3):706-712.
  3. Eriksson P, Wilhelmsen L, Rosengren A (2005). “Bundle-branch block in middle-aged men: risk of complications and death over 28 years. The Primary Prevention Study in Göteborg, Sweden”. European Heart Journal. 26 (21): 2300–6. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi580. PMID 16214833. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. Stein R, Ho M, Oliveira CM; et al. (2011). “Exercise-induced left bundle branch block: prevalence and prognosis”. Arquivos Brasileiros De Cardiologia. 97 (1): 26–32. PMID 21552647. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Template:WH Template:WS

Diagnosis

Diagnosis

History and Symptoms | Physical Examination | Laboratory Findings | Electrocardiogram | EKG Examples | Chest X Ray | Echocardiography | Other Imaging Findings | Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Treatment

Management Strategy | Surgery | Primary Prevention | Secondary Prevention | Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy | Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case Studies

Case #1

Related Chapters


Template:WikiDoc Sources

Looking for the patient version?

Back to the patient-friendly article

© 2026 MyEClinic – IFTM Institut für Telematik in der Medizin GmbH