Hubbry Logo
Left bundle branch blockLeft bundle branch blockMain
Open search
Left bundle branch block
Community hub
Left bundle branch block
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Left bundle branch block
Left bundle branch block
Left bundle branch block
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Left bundle branch block
ECG characteristics of a typical LBBB showing wide QRS complexes with abnormal morphology in leads V1 and V6.
SpecialtyCardiology, Emergency Medicine

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is a conduction abnormality in the heart that can be seen on an electrocardiogram (ECG).[1] In this condition, activation of the left ventricle of the heart is delayed, which causes the left ventricle to contract later than the right ventricle.

Causes

[edit]

Among the causes of LBBB are:[2]

Mechanisms

[edit]

Slow or absent conduction through the left bundle branch means that it takes longer than normal for the left ventricle to fully depolarise.[3] This can be due to a damaged bundle branch that is completely unable to conduct, but may represent intact conduction that is slower than normal. LBBB may be fixed, present at all times, but may be intermittent for example occurring only during rapid heart rates. This may be due to the bundle having a longer refractory period than usual.[3]

Diagnosis

[edit]
Electrocardiogram showing left bundle branch block and irregular rhythm due to supraventricular extrasystoles.
A left bundle branch block

LBBB is diagnosed on a 12-lead ECG. In adults, it is seen as wide QRS complexes lasting ≥120ms with characteristic QRS shapes in the precordial leads, although narrower complexes are seen in children.[4] In lead V1, the QRS complex is often entirely negative (QS morphology), although a small initial R wave may be seen (rS morphology). In the lateral leads (I, aVL, V5-V6) the QRS complexes are usually predominantly positive with a slow upstroke last >60ms to the R-wave peak.[4] Notching may be seen in these leads but this is not universal. The small Q-waves that are usually seen in the lateral leads are absent in LBBB.[4] T-waves usually point in the opposite direction to the terminal portion of the preceding QRS - positive QRS complexes have negative T-waves while negative QRS complexes have positive T-waves. The ST segments typically slur into the T-wave and often appear elevated in leads with negative QRS complexes.[3] The axis may be normal but may be deviated to the left or right.[4]

There are also partial blocks of the left bundle branch: "left anterior fascicular block" (LAFB)[5] and a "left posterior fascicular block" (LPFB).[5] This refers to the block after the bifurcation of the left bundle branch.

Diagnostic consequences

[edit]

The presence of LBBB results in that electrocardiography (ECG) cannot be used to diagnose left ventricular hypertrophy or Q wave infarction, because LBBB in itself results in a widened QRS complex and changes in the ST segment consistent with ischemia or injury.[6]

BARCELONA Criteria

[edit]

Given the difficulty diagnosing an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with pre-existing LBBB, a multicenter retrospective cohort study was done to help improve diagnosis of AMI in this patient population. Sgarbossa criteria and its Modified Criteria have historically been used to determine AMI in patients with LBB, but the clinical utility has a high specificity (90%) with a low sensitivity (36%).

Two new approaches to the ECG were elaborated to improve the diagnostic sensitivity of ECG in patients with LBBB and suspected AMI. First, since any ST deviation concordant with the QRS should be regarded as abnormal, it was hypothesized that not only concordant ST elevation but also concordant ST depression might be a sign of AMI. The Sgarbossa rule of concordant ST depression in leads V1 to V3 was then extended to include any other lead to, in theory, cover the electrocardiographic projection of acute ischemia in different myocardial regions. Second, the presence of an appreciable (≥1 mm or 0.1 mV) discordant ST deviation in low‐voltage QRS complexes was considered as a positive criterion for AMI. This criterion was included because in the absence of ischemia, these complexes usually show isoelectric ST‐segment potentials.

The results of the study resulted in the development of the BARCELONA algorithm. Under these criteria, an ECG is positive for an AMI in the presence of LBBB if any of the following criteria are present:

  1. ST deviation ≥1 mm (0.1 mV) concordant with QRS polarity in any ECG lead, thus including either:
    1. ST depression ≥1 mm (0.1 mV) concordant with QRS polarity, in any ECG lead.
    2. ST elevation ≥1 mm (0.1 mV) concordant with QRS polarity, in any ECG lead (Sgarbossa score 5).
  2. ST deviation ≥1 mm (0.1 mV) discordant with QRS polarity, in any lead with max (R|S) voltage ≤6 mm (0.6 mV).

The BARCELONA algorithm attained the highest sensitivity (95%), significantly higher (P<0.01) than Sgarbossa and Modified Sgarbossa rules, as well as the highest negative predictive value (97%), while maintaining 89% specificity. The global performance of the BARCELONA algorithm was significantly better than previous algorithms: It achieved the highest efficiency (91%) and the highest area under the ROC curve (0.92), which was significantly higher (P<0.01) than the ones obtained by the Sgarbossa and Modified Sgarbossa rules. The BARCELONA algorithm also allowed a significant improvement in the ability to predict the occurrence of an AMI, as shown by Integrated Discrimination Improvement and Net Reclassification Improvement indexes (both indexes showed P<0.01 comparing BARCELONA algorithm with Sgarbossa and Modified Sgarbossa rules).[7]

Treatment

[edit]
  • Patients with LBBB require complete cardiac evaluation, and those with LBBB and syncope or near-syncope may require a pacemaker.
  • Some patients with LBBB, a markedly prolonged QRS (usually > 150 ms), and systolic heart failure may benefit from a biventricular pacemaker, which allows for better synchrony of heart contractions.[8]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Left bundle branch block

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is a cardiac conduction disorder characterized by a delay or blockage in the electrical impulses traveling through the left bundle branch of the heart's conduction system, resulting in asynchronous activation and contraction of the left ventricle relative to the right. This abnormality disrupts the normal synchronous of the ventricles, often leading to a widened on electrocardiogram (ECG) of 120 milliseconds or greater, with broad, notched R waves in leads I, aVL, V5, and V6. LBBB is frequently associated with underlying structural heart diseases, including coronary artery disease, hypertension, cardiomyopathies (such as dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy), myocarditis, and aortic valve disease. Other etiologies encompass degenerative conduction system diseases (e.g., Lev's or Lenègre's disease), infiltrative conditions like sarcoidosis or amyloidosis, congenital heart defects, and iatrogenic causes such as post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), where LBBB occurs in 30% to 50% of cases. Its prevalence is low in the general population (0.06% to 0.1%) but rises significantly with age, affecting 1% to 5% of individuals over 70 years and up to 6% to 7% in those over 80; it is more common in men and White individuals, and occurs in about 33% of patients with heart failure. Clinically, LBBB is often and discovered incidentally during routine ECG evaluation, though it may rarely present with fainting (syncope) or presyncope if associated with significant or other . However, it holds substantial prognostic importance, as it predicts higher risks of , , ventricular arrhythmias, and cardiovascular mortality; new-onset LBBB in acute settings may indicate potential ischemia but is no longer considered a STEMI equivalent per current guidelines (as of 2025), unless accompanied by specific ischemic changes on ECG. In patients with and reduced (≤35%), LBBB with QRS duration ≥150 ms indicates candidacy for (CRT) to improve synchrony and outcomes. Diagnosis relies primarily on ECG criteria, supplemented by to assess ventricular function, for ischemia, and sometimes cardiac or electrophysiological studies for further evaluation. Treatment is tailored to the underlying etiology and symptoms; asymptomatic cases often require only monitoring and management of comorbidities like or coronary disease, while symptomatic or high-risk patients may benefit from pacemakers, CRT, or medications such as beta-blockers for rate control.

Anatomy and Physiology

Normal Cardiac Conduction Pathway

The cardiac conduction system is a specialized network of cells that coordinates the heartbeat by generating and propagating electrical impulses throughout the heart muscle. This system ensures synchronized contractions of the atria and ventricles, optimizing blood flow efficiency. The sinoatrial (SA) node, located in the right atrium near the superior vena cava, serves as the primary pacemaker, initiating impulses through spontaneous depolarization at a rate of 60-100 beats per minute. The electrical impulse originates in the SA node and spreads rapidly across the atria via internodal pathways, causing atrial contraction and pushing blood into the ventricles. This propagation reaches the atrioventricular (AV) node, situated at the junction between the atria and ventricles, which acts as a gatekeeper by delaying the impulse for approximately 0.1 seconds. This delay allows complete atrial emptying before ventricular activation, preventing backflow. From the AV node, the impulse travels to the His bundle (also known as the atrioventricular bundle), a compact structure that penetrates the ventricular septum and serves as the initial pathway for ventricular conduction. The His bundle then divides into the right and left bundle branches, which fan out along the endocardial surface of the ; the left bundle branch, in particular, further subdivides into anterior and posterior fascicles to distribute the signal to the left ventricle. These branches connect to the , a subendocardial network of rapidly conducting fibers that deliver the impulse to the ventricular myocardium, triggering coordinated contraction from apex to base. In a healthy heart, the conduction system's timing is precisely regulated, with the —measuring from atrial to ventricular —normally lasting 120-200 milliseconds, and the QRS duration—reflecting ventricular —typically under 120 milliseconds. This temporal coordination ensures that atrial precedes ventricular , enhancing ventricular filling and overall for effective circulation.

Role of the Left Bundle Branch

The left bundle branch originates from the penetrating portion of the at the top of the muscular , just below the surface. It then courses along the left septal , dividing shortly after its origin into two main fascicles: the anterior (superior) fascicle, which extends toward the anterosuperior left ventricle, and the posterior (inferior) fascicle, which runs toward the posteroinferior left ventricle. These fascicles fan out over the surface of the left ventricular septum and free wall, extending approximately 5–15 mm before ramifying into a network of that penetrate the myocardium up to the base of the papillary muscles and midway toward the left ventricular apex. Functionally, the left bundle branch serves as the primary conduit for rapidly transmitting the electrical impulse from the His bundle to the left ventricular myocardium, enabling near-simultaneous of the left and right ventricles for coordinated and efficient systolic contraction. This rapid conduction, occurring in about 25 ms to reach the , ensures that the thicker left ventricular wall contracts synchronously with the right, optimizing and minimizing dyssynchrony. The branch's subendocardial position facilitates this efficient spread of excitation from the apex toward the base, aligning with the heart's mechanical requirements. The blood supply to the left bundle branch is derived primarily from the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery through its septal perforating branches, which nourish the anterior two-thirds of the in approximately 90% of hearts. In comparison to the right bundle branch, the left bundle is wider and shorter due to the greater mass of the left ventricle it serves, features a bifascicular structure rather than the right's single fascicle, and courses subendocardially along the while the right penetrates intramurally—characteristics that render it more vulnerable to ischemic damage from LAD occlusions.

Pathophysiology

Mechanisms of Conduction Delay

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) arises from disruptions in the normal rapid propagation of electrical impulses through the left bundle branch, a specialized conduction pathway that facilitates synchronized left ventricular activation. At the cellular level, ionic mechanisms play a central role in conduction delay, particularly through impaired function of voltage-gated . Mutations in the gene, which encodes the NaV1.5 sodium channel, reduce peak sodium current (I_Na), slowing the phase 0 upstroke of the action potential and thereby decreasing conduction velocity in the His-Purkinje system. This loss-of-function effect is evident in progressive cardiac conduction disease (Lenègre-Lev disease), where such mutations lead to delayed or blocked impulse transmission specifically within the left bundle branch fibers. Structural alterations in the conduction system further contribute to impaired . and sclerosis of the bundle branch tissues, often due to degenerative changes, replace excitable myocytes with non-conductive , interrupting normal impulse flow. LBBB manifests in varying degrees of severity, classified as complete or incomplete based on the extent of conduction impairment. In complete LBBB, there is total failure of anterograde conduction through the left bundle branch, resulting in no impulse transmission and reliance on transseptal spread from the right ventricle. Incomplete LBBB involves partial impairment, where impulses are delayed but not fully blocked, allowing some residual conduction with a QRS duration typically less than 120 ms. These blocks can also be unidirectional, permitting retrograde conduction while blocking anterograde flow, or bidirectional, involving failure in both directions and often linked to more advanced fibrotic changes. Intercellular communication via gap junctions is essential for coordinated conduction, and their dysfunction underlies many cases of bundle branch failure. Connexins, particularly Cx40 and Cx43, form these junctions in the His-Purkinje system; reduced expression or altered distribution of Cx40 impairs longitudinal current flow between cardiomyocytes, leading to discontinuous propagation and block in the bundle branches. In diseased states, such as , dephosphorylation and lateralization of Cx43 further decrease junctional conductance, promoting anisotropic conduction and facilitating unidirectional or complete blocks.

Electrophysiological Consequences

In left bundle branch block (LBBB), the normal rapid conduction through the left bundle branch is disrupted, leading to an altered ventricular sequence. The right ventricle depolarizes first via the intact right bundle branch, followed by delayed of the left ventricle through transseptal spread from the right side and subsequent conduction via myocardial muscle fibers rather than the specialized His-Purkinje system. This results in a right-to-left septal pattern, with the left ventricular posterolateral wall experiencing a significant delay in depolarization. The prolonged left ventricular activation time contributes to widening on the electrocardiogram, typically exceeding 120 ms, as defined by standard criteria from the and the . More stringent Strauss criteria specify a QRS duration of at least 140 ms in men and 130 ms in women for complete LBBB. This widening arises from cumulative delays, including approximately 40 ms for transseptal conduction, 50 ms to reach the posterolateral wall, and an additional 50 ms for full left ventricular activation, totaling at least 140 ms in many cases. Secondary changes in accompany the abnormal sequence, manifesting as discordant ST-segment and T-wave abnormalities. These include slight ST-segment depression and negative asymmetrical T waves in lateral leads such as V5 and V6, which are opposite in polarity to the main QRS deflection, as outlined in the 2021 criteria. Such alterations reflect the altered sequence of ventricular recovery influenced by the delayed left-sided activation. The asynchronous activation in LBBB induces interventricular and intraventricular dyssynchrony, where the right ventricle contracts ahead of the left, leading to inefficient mechanical coordination. This dyssynchrony can be quantified by a septal-to-lateral delay greater than 60 ms on pulsed-wave Doppler imaging. Over time, chronic dyssynchrony promotes adverse and reduced left ventricular ; for instance, in a , ejection fraction declined from 56% to 31% over an average of 4.6 years in approximately 5.3% of patients with new-onset LBBB.

Etiology

Acquired Causes

Acquired causes of left bundle branch block (LBBB) predominantly arise in the context of underlying structural heart disease in adults, with the condition often developing as a consequence of progressive myocardial damage or affecting the conduction system. These etiologies are more prevalent in older individuals, with risk factors including advanced age, male sex, and comorbidities such as or . Ischemic heart disease represents the most frequent acquired cause of LBBB, typically resulting from (CAD) that leads to or chronic ischemia in the regions supplied by the , disrupting the left bundle branch. In population-based studies like the , LBBB was strongly associated with antecedent coronary heart disease, occurring in a substantial proportion of cases alongside other cardiovascular risk factors. Hypertension and various forms of are also key contributors, where chronic pressure overload induces that mechanically stretches or compresses the left bundle branch, often compounded by interstitial . Longstanding or poorly controlled is a major risk factor, with the Framingham study reporting it as a common precursor in incident LBBB cases. In , LBBB prevalence ranges from 10% to 26%, reflecting the disease's impact on ventricular dilation and conduction delays, while hypertrophic or infiltrative cardiomyopathies (e.g., due to ) similarly elevate risk through myocardial remodeling. Valvular heart disease, particularly or regurgitation, promotes LBBB through progressive fibrosis and calcification of the conduction tissues adjacent to the aortic root. These conditions are more common in elderly patients with degenerative valve changes, where left ventricular pressure overload exacerbates bundle branch strain. Infectious and inflammatory processes can acutely or subacutely impair the left bundle branch by direct infiltration or immune-mediated damage to the conduction myocardium. Examples include from infection, viral or bacterial , and granulomatous diseases like , which carry higher risks in endemic areas or immunocompromised individuals. Iatrogenic causes arise from procedural interventions that inadvertently injure the conduction system, such as , catheter-based ablations near the left bundle, or (TAVR). Post-TAVR LBBB incidence reaches 30% to 50%, associated with elevated procedural risks and subsequent need for pacemaker implantation.

Congenital and Rare Causes

Congenital and rare causes of left bundle branch block (LBBB) account for less than 10% of all cases and are more likely to present in younger patients compared to the more prevalent acquired etiologies. These etiologies often stem from developmental anomalies or infrequent pathological processes that disrupt the left bundle branch during or through . LBBB can arise in association with certain congenital heart defects, particularly following surgical repairs of ventricular septal defects (VSDs) or (TOF). In VSD repairs, operative proximity to the conduction system may inadvertently damage the left bundle branch, leading to postoperative LBBB, though is more commonly reported. Similarly, in TOF, the complex anatomy involving the infundibular septum and VSD can predispose to conduction abnormalities after corrective surgery, with LBBB occurring due to or direct surgical trauma in a subset of patients. These associations highlight the vulnerability of the conduction tissue in conotruncal anomalies, often manifesting as persistent LBBB in long-term follow-up. Genetic syndromes represent another key congenital etiology, notably progressive cardiac conduction disease linked to mutations in the gene. encodes the cardiac sodium channel NaV1.5, and loss-of-function mutations lead to reduced sodium current, causing progressive fibrosis and degeneration of the His-Purkinje system, including the left bundle branch. This can result in isolated or familial LBBB, often progressing to higher-degree . Lev-Lenègre disease, a form of hereditary progressive cardiac conduction defect, exemplifies this, characterized by idiopathic sclerosis and calcification of the conduction pathways, frequently involving LBBB as an early feature. Affected individuals typically present in adolescence or early adulthood, with a familial pattern underscoring the autosomal dominant inheritance in SCN5A-related cases. Among rare causes, transient LBBB can be induced by severe , where elevated levels (>7.0 mEq/L) alter myocardial excitability and slow conduction through the left bundle branch, often resolving with correction. , particularly transthyretin or light-chain types, infiltrates the conduction tissue with amyloid deposits, leading to LBBB in up to 20-30% of advanced cases due to extrinsic compression and intrinsic . These rare mechanisms emphasize the need for targeted evaluation in presentations.

Clinical Manifestations

Associated Symptoms

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is frequently asymptomatic in individuals without underlying cardiac pathology, as the conduction delay does not always impair overall heart function significantly. However, when symptoms do arise in isolation, they are typically nonspecific and related to the mechanical dyssynchrony caused by asynchronous contraction of the left ventricle, leading to reduced efficiency in ventricular filling and ejection. Common manifestations include fatigue, dyspnea on exertion, and palpitations, which reflect the subtle hemodynamic alterations from delayed left ventricular activation. In the context of comorbid conditions like with reduced , LBBB often contributes to symptom exacerbation through further impairment of cardiac synchrony and output. Patients may experience pronounced , stemming from diminished and inability to augment adequately during . This dyssynchrony can worsen the baseline fatigue and dyspnea typical of , creating a cycle of reduced functional capacity. Up to 30% of patients with and moderate to severe left ventricular dysfunction exhibit LBBB, which is associated with heightened symptom burden attributable to these conduction-related effects. Syncope or presyncope represents a more concerning presentation, particularly when LBBB coexists with or progression to , as the resulting intermittent pauses in conduction can compromise cerebral . These episodes are less common but underscore the potential for LBBB to precipitate acute hemodynamic instability in susceptible individuals. may corroborate these symptoms through signs of reduced cardiac reserve, such as jugular venous distension or .

Physical Examination Findings

Patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) often exhibit no distinctive physical examination findings directly attributable to the conduction disturbance itself, as the condition is typically electrocardiographic in nature and unless complicated by underlying pathology. Instead, clinical signs primarily stem from associated cardiovascular diseases such as , , or valvular disorders. A thorough physical assessment, including , cardiac , and evaluation for congestion, is essential to identify these comorbidities. Cardiac auscultation may reveal alterations in heart sounds due to the dyssynchronous left ventricular contraction characteristic of LBBB. A key finding is paradoxical (reversed) splitting of the second heart sound (S2), where the aortic component (A2) is delayed relative to the pulmonic component (P2), resulting in wider splitting during expiration that narrows or fuses with inspiration; this occurs because LBBB prolongs left ventricular ejection time, delaying aortic valve closure. The first heart sound (S1) can be diminished in intensity, attributed to asynchronous and delayed closure of the mitral valve, with the mitral component often following the tricuspid component in some cases. These auscultatory changes are not always prominent and require careful listening, particularly at the base of the heart. In the presence of decompensated —a common —examination may disclose signs of , including jugular venous distension, bibasilar pulmonary rales, a displaced apical impulse, and an S3 indicative of elevated left ventricular filling pressures. , hepatomegaly, or may also be evident in advanced cases. Valvular abnormalities, if present, can manifest as , such as a systolic ejection murmur in or a diastolic murmur in , further complicating the hemodynamic profile. These findings underscore the importance of correlating physical exam results with electrocardiographic and imaging studies to guide .

Diagnosis

Electrocardiographic Diagnosis

Electrocardiographic diagnosis of left bundle branch block (LBBB) relies on identifying characteristic patterns of ventricular delay on a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), primarily through assessment of morphology and duration. Traditional criteria for LBBB include a QRS duration of 120 ms or greater, broad monophasic R waves in leads I, aVL, V5, and V6 without preceding Q waves, and a dominant in leads V1 and V2, often accompanied by ST-segment depression and T-wave inversion in the lateral leads. These features reflect delayed left ventricular activation due to conduction block in the left bundle branch, resulting in reversed septal from right to left. In 2011, Strauss and colleagues proposed stricter criteria for complete LBBB to better identify patients with true conduction block, particularly for selection; these include a QRS duration of at least 140 ms in men or 130 ms in women, QS or rS morphology in leads V1 and V2, and mid-QRS or slurring in at least two contiguous leads of the anterior or lateral projection. These updated criteria emphasize the presence of or slurring to distinguish complete LBBB from nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay. Differentiation from right bundle branch block (RBBB) is straightforward on ECG, as LBBB lacks the characteristic rSR' pattern or wide R' wave in V1-V2 seen in RBBB, instead showing QS or rS complexes in those leads. Rate-dependent LBBB, also known as tachycardia-dependent or acceleration-dependent block, manifests as the appearance or worsening of LBBB features during increased heart rates, often due to incomplete refractoriness in the conduction system. This phenomenon can be confirmed by observing resolution of the block at slower rates on serial ECGs.

Imaging and Advanced Tests

Echocardiography serves as a key non-invasive imaging modality to assess mechanical dyssynchrony in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB), particularly through the identification of septal flash and apical rocking patterns. Septal flash refers to the early systolic inward motion of the followed by its outward rebound, while apical rocking describes the anteroseptal motion during and posterior displacement during early , both indicative of delayed left ventricular activation due to LBBB. These echocardiographic signs are associated with improved outcomes following in LBBB patients, as they reflect viable myocardium capable of resynchronization. Following initial electrocardiographic screening for LBBB, helps quantify the extent of dyssynchrony and guide therapeutic decisions. Cardiac (MRI) provides detailed evaluation of underlying structural abnormalities in LBBB, with late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) techniques particularly useful for detecting myocardial or scarring in the bundle branch region. LGE identifies areas of replacement that may contribute to conduction delays, distinguishing true from pseudo-infarction patterns mimicking ischemic changes in LBBB. In patients with LBBB and , the absence of focal or interstitial on cardiac MRI suggests that diffuse rather than scar tissue may drive conduction abnormalities. Quantitative measures such as extracellular from cardiac MRI further correlate with dyssynchronous contraction and in LBBB. Invasive studies offer precise mapping of conduction pathways in LBBB, measuring parameters like the His-ventricular (HV) interval to assess infranodal delays. An HV interval exceeding 55 ms indicates significant conduction slowing distal to the His bundle, supporting the diagnosis of true LBBB and predicting risk of progression to higher-degree . These studies involve catheter-based recording of activation times, confirming left bundle involvement through prolonged left ventricular endocardial activation relative to right ventricular sites. In symptomatic patients post-transcatheter with new LBBB, testing stratifies those with HV intervals >55 ms for pacemaker implantation to prevent bradyarrhythmias. Holter monitoring, a prolonged ambulatory electrocardiographic technique, is essential for detecting intermittent or rate-dependent LBBB that may not appear on standard 12-lead ECGs. It captures episodic bundle branch blocks, often correlating with symptoms like or syncope, and reveals patterns such as repetitive intermittent LBBB triggered by changes. In cases of painful LBBB syndrome, Holter recordings document the temporal association between conduction abnormalities and symptoms, aiding in diagnosis and management planning. This monitoring is particularly valuable for assessing dynamic conduction variability in patients with suspected intermittent LBBB.

Clinical Significance

Prognostic Implications

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is associated with a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of cardiovascular mortality in the general population, with all-cause mortality elevated by approximately 1.4-fold. This risk is particularly pronounced in individuals with prolonged QRS duration exceeding 150 ms, where the likelihood of cardiovascular death further escalates due to exacerbated ventricular dyssynchrony and impaired cardiac efficiency. In patients with , LBBB contributes to disease progression by increasing the risk of hospitalization by approximately 86%, driven by dyssynchronous contraction that worsens left and systolic function over time. Recent cohort studies confirm this, showing up to a 5-fold higher incidence of new-onset in those with LBBB and preserved baseline , alongside a marked decline in ventricular performance. New-onset LBBB following serves as an indicator of poor prognosis, often signaling a larger infarct size, particularly in anterior wall involvement due to proximal occlusion. This pattern correlates with higher short- and long-term mortality rates, as well as increased complications like development. Studies indicate higher long-term mortality in LBBB, with approximately 50% 10-year cardiovascular mortality in some cohorts (e.g., Framingham Study). These findings highlight LBBB's role as a marker of underlying structural heart , with outcomes varying by comorbidity burden and QRS morphology. A 2025 cohort study confirmed LBBB as an independent risk factor for incident in adults aged ≥65 years with initially normal left ventricular .

Impact on Heart Failure Management

In patients with and reduced (HFrEF), the presence of left bundle branch block (LBBB) significantly influences strategies, particularly through updated guidelines emphasizing (CRT) candidacy. According to the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline, CRT is recommended (Class I) for symptomatic patients (NYHA class II-IV) with LVEF ≤35%, , and LBBB with QRS duration ≥150 ms, while it is reasonable (Class IIa) for those with QRS duration 130-149 ms, reflecting evidence from trials like MADIT-CRT showing benefits starting at ≥130 ms. Similarly, the 2021 ESC Guidelines recommend CRT (Class I) for LVEF ≤35%, QRS ≥150 ms with LBBB morphology, and NYHA class II-IV symptoms (Class IIa for QRS 130-149 ms), but advise against it for QRS <130 ms unless pacing is otherwise indicated. These thresholds modify staging by identifying LBBB as a key electrical dyssynchrony marker that elevates CRT priority over medical therapy alone in eligible HFrEF patients. Echocardiographic assessment of LVEF in LBBB poses challenges due to mechanical dyssynchrony, which alters ventricular contraction patterns and can artifactually lower measured , masking underlying systolic function. In LBBB, asynchronous activation leads to reduced global LV efficiency, complicating accurate staging of HFrEF severity and response to guideline-directed medical . Advanced techniques like 3D echocardiography or speckle-tracking may better quantify intrinsic contractility, but 2D methods often underestimate true function, necessitating complementary for precise diagnosis. Viability testing is integrated into heart failure management for LBBB patients prior to CRT, especially in ischemic cardiomyopathy, to evaluate myocardial scar burden and predict resynchronization benefits using criteria such as those assessing transmural scar extent via MRI or nuclear imaging. Seminal work demonstrates that extensive scar tissue limits CRT response by impairing reverse remodeling, guiding decisions to proceed with device implantation only in patients with sufficient viable myocardium. Recent 2024 analyses highlight sex-specific QRS thresholds for optimizing CRT outcomes in LBBB-related HFrEF, with meta-analyses showing women derive greater benefit at shorter durations (≥130 ms) compared to men (≥150 ms) in nonischemic cases, influencing personalized staging and selection to improve heart failure hospitalization rates and survival. This refinement addresses historical underrepresentation of sex differences, enhancing guideline application for equitable management. Additionally, new-onset persistent LBBB after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with increased long-term cardiovascular mortality as of 2025.

Treatment

General Management Strategies

Management of left bundle branch block (LBBB) primarily focuses on addressing underlying causes and preventing complications through non-invasive strategies, particularly in patients without symptoms or advanced heart disease. Risk factor modification is essential, as LBBB is often associated with conditions like hypertension and coronary artery disease. Blood pressure control is recommended to reduce the burden on the cardiac conduction system, with target systolic pressures below 130 mm Hg in most adults. Statins are advised for ischemia prevention in patients with evidence of atherosclerosis, aiming to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels to less than 70 mg/dL in high-risk cases. Pharmacotherapy targets underlying cardiomyopathy or coexisting conditions rather than the conduction abnormality itself. Beta-blockers, such as metoprolol or , are used to manage heart failure symptoms and reduce myocardial oxygen demand, particularly in cases of rate-dependent LBBB. (ACE) inhibitors, like lisinopril, are indicated for patients with reduced to improve and prevent progression of . Class Ic antiarrhythmics, including and , should be avoided due to their potential to further impair conduction and increase the risk of complete in the presence of LBBB. Regular monitoring is crucial to detect progression or complications. In asymptomatic patients, annual electrocardiography (ECG) is recommended to assess for symptom development or worsening conduction delay, with more frequent evaluations (every 3-6 months) in symptomatic individuals or those with comorbidities. Holter monitoring may be employed periodically to evaluate for intermittent arrhythmias. Lifestyle modifications play a key role in overall cardiac health and risk reduction. Patients are encouraged to adopt a heart-healthy diet low in saturated fats and sodium, maintain a healthy weight, and quit to mitigate progression of underlying . Exercise programs should be tailored, emphasizing moderate-intensity activities such as walking, , or to improve while avoiding excessive that could exacerbate conduction issues in rate-dependent LBBB.

Specific Interventions

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a key invasive intervention for patients with symptomatic and left bundle branch block (LBBB) accompanied by a prolonged QRS duration, typically ≥150 ms, to address ventricular dyssynchrony through biventricular pacing. Clinical trials demonstrate that CRT significantly reduces the risk of heart failure hospitalization or death in these patients, with a of 0.56 (95% , 0.48–0.66). Response rates to CRT in LBBB patients with wide QRS range from 60% to 70%, marked by improvements in left ventricular , quality of life, and exercise capacity, though benefits are more pronounced in non-ischemic and strict LBBB morphology. His-bundle pacing has emerged as a physiological alternative to traditional CRT, particularly post-2020, by directly stimulating the His bundle to restore normal conduction and correct LBBB-related dyssynchrony in patients. Randomized trials show that His-bundle pacing achieves similar clinical improvements to biventricular pacing, including QRS narrowing (from baseline ~165 ms to ~117 ms) and left ventricular gains (up to 11% increase), with comparable reductions in events. It offers advantages in lead placement for selective capture but may require higher pacing thresholds (around 1.35 V) compared to other methods, with success rates exceeding 80% in experienced centers. Safety profiles are favorable, with low complication rates, though procedural complexity remains a consideration. For LBBB attributable to ischemic etiology, such as in , revascularization via (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is essential to restore myocardial perfusion and potentially resolve conduction abnormalities. Although historically considered a STEMI equivalent, current guidelines (as of 2025) do not classify new or presumed new LBBB alone as such; primary is recommended in the context of with symptoms suggestive of occlusion myocardial infarction, guided by additional criteria such as Sgarbossa score, with angioplasty rates approaching 62% in affected patients leading to improved short-term outcomes. CABG may be indicated for multivessel disease, offering long-term mortality benefits over PCI in select high-risk cases, though both approaches underscore the need for aggressive reperfusion to mitigate adverse prognosis associated with ischemic LBBB. Recent 2025 advancements include leadless pacemakers adapted for left bundle branch area pacing in cases of LBBB-related , addressing limitations of traditional transvenous systems. In a first-in-human , implantation of the Aveir CSP leadless pacemaker achieved successful left bundle branch capture in 83% of patients with conduction disorders, including second-degree AV block, yielding low pacing thresholds (1.2 ± 0.6 V at 0.4 ms) and an 85.7% freedom from serious adverse events at one month. This approach minimizes infection risks and enhances physiological pacing, with ongoing trials evaluating long-term efficacy for high-risk LBBB subsets.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482167/
  2. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bundle-branch-block/symptoms-causes/syc-20370514
  3. https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/arrhythmia/about-arrhythmia/conduction-disorders
  4. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2024.11.009
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3064561/
  6. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/heart/heart-beats
  7. https://www.vhlab.umn.edu/atlas/conduction-system-tutorial/overview-of-cardiac-conduction.shtml
  8. https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/anatomyandphysiology/chapter/cardiac-muscle-and-electrical-activity/
  9. https://www.vhlab.umn.edu/atlas/conduction-system-tutorial/atrioventricular-node-and-bundle-of-his.shtml
  10. https://www.vhlab.umn.edu/atlas/coronary-arteries/lad-left-anterior-descending-artery/index.shtml
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6636349/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6022915/
  13. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCEP.119.008239
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405500X24002755
  15. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.105.547893
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005273611002446
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11499974/
  18. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-90-3-303
  19. https://academic.oup.com/europace/article/19/8/1251/3746065
  20. https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S0022-5223%2823%2900250-7/fulltext
  21. https://academic.oup.com/europace/article/23/Supplement_1/i105/6158561
  22. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/HAE.0000000000000084
  23. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/hc0302.102592
  24. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/progressive-familial-heart-block/
  25. https://www.orpha.net/en/disease/detail/871
  26. https://www.cureus.com/articles/142991-dynamic-changes-of-ekg-by-severe-hyperkalemia-transient-left-bundle-branch-block
  27. https://www.amjmed.com/article/0002-9343%2877%2990870-1/fulltext
  28. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000628
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12024876/
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4476170/
  31. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.07.018
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105017381830197X
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10075189/
  34. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/hc4201.097837
  35. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK341/
  36. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7449064/
  37. https://litfl.com/left-bundle-branch-block-lbbb-ecg-library/
  38. https://ecgwaves.com/topic/left-bundle-branch-block-lbbb-ecg-criteria-treatment/
  39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21376930/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6489834/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11172686/
  42. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.122.014849
  43. https://academic.oup.com/ehjcimaging/article/doi/10.1093/ehjci/jeae333.041/7986550
  44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40144554/
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1054880724001091
  46. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/ryct.220127
  47. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/01.cir.47.5.1134
  48. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2816973
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7335581/
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17100689/
  51. https://www.heartrhythmjournal.com/article/s1547-5271%2815%2901015-2/fulltext
  52. https://www.cureus.com/articles/51478-a-case-of-intermittent-left-bundle-branch-block
  53. https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2805%2900760-6/fulltext
  54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23696612/
  55. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2837337
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147956316303375
  57. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7724243/
  59. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/echo.13758
  60. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/28/1/33/2887731
  61. https://www.heartrhythmjournal.com/article/S1547-5271(24)00128-0/fulltext
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12124747/
  63. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23287-left-bundle-branch-block
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9126441/
  65. https://www.droracle.ai/articles/358785/asymptomatic-lbbb-treatment
  66. https://www.everydayhealth.com/heart-disease/recommended-exercises-with-a-bundle-branch-block/
  67. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.062124
  68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24704570/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11504024/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405500X21003285
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6279709/
  72. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001038
  73. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001309
  74. https://www.heartrhythmjournal.com/article/S1547-5271(25)02378-1/fulltext
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.