ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT04328649Updated May 6, 2020

Clinical, Structural and Mechanical Features in Patients With Left Bundle Branch Block.

An observational study in Left Bundle-Branch Block, Electrocardiographic Pattens and Clinical Features, sponsored by Policlinico Casilino ASL RMB. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-05-06.

Sponsored by Policlinico Casilino ASL RMB · Observational

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Apr 2022, 4 years 6 months ago, but the record still lists the study as not yet recruiting.
Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
250
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Clinical, structural and mechanical features in patients with left bundle branch block.

Read the detailed description

Left bundle-branch block (LBBB) is an electrocardiographic marker often associated with underlying cardiac disease (such as coronary artery disease, dilated cardiomyopathy, etc) but in some cases it is also found in patients with isolated LBBB defined as "none apparent structural heart disease".

Several investigations in animal and human study have showed a different electroanatomical activation in isolated LBBB when compared to LBBB in heart failure patients mostly due to coronary artery disease. The sequence of endocardial activation through the left ventricle has also proven to be heterogeneous in heart failure occuring at different septal regions. This electrical and mechanical variability seems to be related to location of LBBB block or lesion that could be proximal, distal or diffuse, consequently influencing also electrocardiographic aspects.

These considerations explain and justify the great variability in the proposed "true or typical LBBB" definitions (derived from from Strauss, Perrin and Marican definitions and from Heart Association/American College Cardiology Foundation/ European Society of Cardiology guidelines) but also shift attention to relatively new concept of atypical LBBB definitions with extreme left or right axis deviation and of non specific intraventricular conduction delay defined as a wide QRS (≥110 ms) without the appearance of left and right bundle-branch block. In fact, several investigations have shown that QRS axis deviation is a predictor of unfavorable outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy and LBBB. The less favorable outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates with LBBB and left axis deviation seems to be associated to the presence of a shorter activation delay, scar tissue and left ventricular hypertrophy. Moreover, actual LBBB definitions recommended by guidelines in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients differ significantly and only individual ECG criteria (such as electrocardiographic intervals QS or RS in lead V1, notch and no q wave in lead V5, V6, I and avL) seems to be associated to clinical outcome when compared with combining criteria.

Finally, a frequent dyssynchrony of ventricular activation due to LBBB may be responsible for a dyssynchrony-related cardiomyopathy that needs to be identified early and differentiated from other forms of dilated cardiomyopathy through a multiparametric approach such as genetic, clinical data, electrocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance. In fact, in isolated LBBB undergone cardiac magnetic resonance it was observed a greater left ventricular volumes and lower global left ventricular Ejection Fraction despite the absence of cardiovascular disease as compared with control subject. Despite this, comparison between isolated LBBB and structural heart disease shows a different myocardial mechanism all the more unfavourable the more significant is the presence of underlying myocardial scarring. In the other hand, isolated LBBB, dyssynchrony-related cardiomyopathy and myocardial scarring could present different temporal phase in the clinical history of the same patient and that must be early identified.

The aim of this present large-scale prospective observational study is to evaluate 1) clinical, electrocardiographic and imaging features in a population of patients with typical and atypical LBBB and " non specific intraventricular conduction delay" pattern during a long-term follow up and 2) association among eventual different LBBB patterns (typical, atypical (LBBB and extreme left and/or right axis deviation, fragmentation) and " non specific intraventricular conduction delay " pattern and tissue characterization, mechanical myocardial activation and perfusion. 3) a possible time-related evolution from "non specific intraventricular conduction delay" patterns to typical or atypical LBBB.

02

Conditions studied

  • Left Bundle-Branch Block
  • Electrocardiographic Pattens
  • Clinical Features

Browse trials for

03

In context

Bundle-Branch Block

94 studies on the registry are indexed under Bundle-Branch Block; 30 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 250 is above the median of 162 across 33 observational studies indexed under Bundle-Branch Block.

Browse Bundle-Branch Block studies →

Lead sponsor

Policlinico Casilino ASL RMB is the lead sponsor of 13 studies on the registry; 3 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

In this prospective observational study we consider to enroll patients with LBBB admitted to our Cardiology Department and Ambulatory Care Unit recording different ECG patterns, risk factors, genetic, underlying heart disease, imaging parameters (Echocardiographic and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance) and treatment (either pharmacological or interventional).

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Every patient with electrocardiographic diagnosis of LBBB admitted to our Cardiology Department and Ambulatory Care Unit
  • standard criteria from typical, atypical and NIVCD
  • Patients who have given their in writing.
  • Age ≥ 18 years

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Age \<18 years
  • Patients who have not given their in writing.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

ECG (electrocardiogram)

A recording of the heart’s electrical activity, taken with stickers on the chest, arms and legs. It takes a few minutes and does not hurt.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
250 participants (estimated)
Target follow-up
5 Years
Patient registry
Yes
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Rate of ECG pattern distribution in LBBB patients

    Time frame: 5 years

  2. Rate of underlying structural heart diseases in different LBBB pattern

    Time frame: 5 years

  3. Number of participants with stress induced myocardial ischemia during Stress Magnetic resonance

    Time frame: 5 years

  4. number or participants with late gadolinium enhancement during cardiac magnetic resonance

    Time frame: 5 years

  5. number and of participants with isolated LBBB evolving to dyssynchrony-related cardiomyopathy

    Time frame: 5 years

  6. Number of participants with mechanical dyssynchrony evaluated with Echocardiography

    Strain, Strain Rate, intraventricular timing Delay between left ventricular lateral and Septal wall

    Time frame: 5 years

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Publications

  • Akhtari S, Chuang ML, Salton CJ, Berg S, Kissinger KV, Goddu B, O'Donnell CJ, Manning WJ. Effect of isolated left bundle-branch block on biventricular volumes and ejection fraction: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018 Sep 20;20(1):66. doi: 10.1186/s12968-018-0457-8. PubMed 30231875 ↗
  • Strik M, Regoli F, Auricchio A, Prinzen F. Electrical and mechanical ventricular activation during left bundle branch block and resynchronization. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2012 Apr;5(2):117-26. doi: 10.1007/s12265-012-9351-1. Epub 2012 Feb 7. PubMed 22311563 ↗
  • Surawicz B, Childers R, Deal BJ, Gettes LS, Bailey JJ, Gorgels A, Hancock EW, Josephson M, Kligfield P, Kors JA, Macfarlane P, Mason JW, Mirvis DM, Okin P, Pahlm O, Rautaharju PM, van Herpen G, Wagner GS, Wellens H; American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; American College of Cardiology Foundation; Heart Rhythm Society. AHA/ACCF/HRS recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: part III: intraventricular conduction disturbances: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society. Endorsed by the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Mar 17;53(11):976-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.12.013. No abstract available. PubMed 19281930 ↗
  • European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA); Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, Bordachar P, Boriani G, Breithardt OA, Cleland J, Deharo JC, Delgado V, Elliott PM, Gorenek B, Israel CW, Leclercq C, Linde C, Mont L, Padeletti L, Sutton R, Vardas PE. 2013 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the task force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace. 2013 Aug;15(8):1070-118. doi: 10.1093/europace/eut206. Epub 2013 Jun 24. No abstract available. PubMed 23801827 ↗
  • Strauss DG, Selvester RH, Wagner GS. Defining left bundle branch block in the era of cardiac resynchronization therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2011 Mar 15;107(6):927-34. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.11.010. PubMed 21376930 ↗
  • Padanilam BJ, Morris KE, Olson JA, Rippy JS, Walsh MN, Subramanian N, Vidal A, Prystowsky EN, Steinberg LA. The surface electrocardiogram predicts risk of heart block during right heart catheterization in patients with preexisting left bundle branch block: implications for the definition of complete left bundle branch block. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010 Jul;21(7):781-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2009.01714.x. Epub 2010 Feb 1. PubMed 20132380 ↗
  • Kisiel R, Fijorek K, Moskal P, Kukla P, Pavlinec C, Stec J, Czarnecka D, Jastrzebski M. True left bundle branch block and long-term mortality in cardiac resynchronisation therapy patients. Kardiol Pol. 2019;77(3):371-379. doi: 10.5603/KP.a2019.0032. Epub 2019 Feb 25. PubMed 30799545 ↗
  • Eschalier R, Ploux S, Ritter P, Haissaguerre M, Ellenbogen KA, Bordachar P. Nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay: Definitions, prognosis, and implications for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm. 2015 May;12(5):1071-9. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.01.023. Epub 2015 Jan 19. PubMed 25614250 ↗
  • Storkas HS, Hansen TF, Tahri JB, Lauridsen TK, Olsen FJ, Borgquist R, Vinther M, Lindhardt TB, Bruun NE, Sogaard P, Risum N. Left axis deviation in patients with left bundle branch block is a marker of myocardial disease associated with poor response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Electrocardiol. 2020 Nov-Dec;63:147-152. doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2019.04.007. Epub 2019 Apr 5. PubMed 31003852 ↗
  • van Stipdonk AMW, Hoogland R, Ter Horst I, Kloosterman M, Vanbelle S, Crijns HJGM, Prinzen FW, Meine M, Maass AH, Vernooy K. Evaluating Electrocardiography-Based Identification of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Responders Beyond Current Left Bundle Branch Block Definitions. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Feb;6(2):193-203. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2019.10.009. Epub 2019 Nov 27. PubMed 32081223 ↗
  • Sanna GD, Merlo M, Moccia E, Fabris E, Masia SL, Finocchiaro G, Parodi G, Sinagra G. Left bundle branch block-induced cardiomyopathy: a diagnostic proposal for a poorly explored pathological entity. Int J Cardiol. 2020 Jan 15;299:199-205. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.06.008. Epub 2019 Jun 4. PubMed 31186131 ↗
  • Strauss DG, Selvester RH. The QRS complex--a biomarker that "images" the heart: QRS scores to quantify myocardial scar in the presence of normal and abnormal ventricular conduction. J Electrocardiol. 2009 Jan-Feb;42(1):85-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2008.07.011. Epub 2008 Sep 13. No abstract available. PubMed 18790501 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Start is estimated for May 2020; primary completion for Apr 2022, 23 months later.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Mar 26, 2020
First posted
Mar 31, 2020
StartEst.
May 15, 2020
Primary completionEst.
Apr 15, 2022
CompletionEst.
Apr 15, 2025
Last update
May 6, 2020
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 6, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04328649
Lead sponsor
Policlinico Casilino ASL RMB
Responsible party
Leonardo Calò, MD (Professor, FESC, Policlinico Casilino ASL RMB) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 31, 2020
Start date
May 15, 2020 (estimated)
Primary completion
Apr 15, 2022 (estimated)
Completion
Apr 15, 2025 (estimated)
Last update
May 6, 2020

Study contacts

Leonardo Calò, Professor
Contact
leonardo.calo@gmail.com
0623188406
Leonardo Calò, Professor
Contact
0623188406

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in May 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion