The Spectrum of Acquired Atrioventricular Block in Clinical Practice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2015/hc.v1i1.2Keywords:
Type I second-degree atrioventricular block, Type II second-degree atrioventricular block, Atrioventricular Block, Electrocardiography, Cardiac pacemaker, Cardiac pacingAbstract
ABSTRACT: Type I and type II second-degree AV block characterize block of a single sinus P wave:Type I block describes visible, varying and generally decremental AV conduction and type II block describes apparent all-or-none conduction without visible changes in AV conduction time before and after the blocked impulse. Absence of sinus slowing is an important criterion of type II block because a vagal surge (generally benign) can superficially resemble type II block. The diagnosis of type II block cannot be established if the first postblock P wave is followed by a shortened PR interval or is not discernible. All correctly defined type II blocks are infranodal. A pattern resembling narrow QRS Type II block together with an obvious type I structure in the same recording effectively rules out type II block because the co-existence of both types of narrow-QRS block is rare. Narrow QRS type I block is almost always AV nodal whereas type I block with bundle branch block outside acute myocardial infarction is infranodal in 60-70 % of cases. 2:1 AV block cannot be classified in terms of type I or II blocks and can be nodal or infranodal. Pacing is indicated in symptomatic marked first-degree AV block (>0.30 sec.), but patients with systolic heart failure might benefit more with biventricular pacing. Permanent pacing is almost never needed after inferior myocardial infarction and narrow QRS AV block. It should be considered only if second- or third-degree AV block persist for 14-16 days. Patients with bundle branch block and transient secondand third-degree AV block during anterior myocardial infarction have a high risk of sudden death after hospital discharge usually from ventricular tachyarrhythmias rather than AV block. They should receive an implantable cardioverter- defibrillator rather than a stand-alone pacemaker in the setting of severely depressed systolic left ventricular function. There are many causes of atrioventricular (AV) block but progressive idiopathic fibrosis of the conduction system related to an aging process of the cardiac skeleton is the most common cause of chronic acquired AV block. Barring congenital AV block, Lyme disease is the commonest cause of reversible third-degree AV block in young individuals and it is usually AV nodal. Before implantation of a permanent pacemaker, reversible causes of AV block such as Lyme disease, hypervagotonia, athletic heart, sleep apnea, ischemia, and drug, metabolic, or electrolytic imbalance must be excluded. Table 1 outlines the format used in the 2002 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/ North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (ACC/AHA/NASPE) guidelines for pacemaker implantation [1]. The indications for permanent pacing in second- or third- degree AV block unlikely to regress are often straightforward in symptomatic patients but they are more difficult in asymptomatic patients. Some of the ACC/AHA/NASPE guidelines appear somewhat dogmatic. The final responsibility rests with the physician in terms of decisions, and the guidelines only represent a basic framework to start from.Downloads
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).