Outcomes of Heart Block in Myocarditis: A Review of 31,760 Patients

Various electrocardiographic abnormalities, including atrioventricular conduction block, have been reported in patients with myocarditis. We performed an observation study to describe the characteristics and outcomes of inpatients diagnosed with myocarditis complicated by heart block (HB) in a large...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Heart, lung & circulation lung & circulation, 2019-02, Vol.28 (2), p.272-276
Hauptverfasser: Ogunbayo, Gbolahan O., Elayi, Samy-Claude, Ha, Le Dung, Olorunfemi, Odunayo, Elbadawi, Ayman, Saheed, Deola, Sorrell, Vincent L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Various electrocardiographic abnormalities, including atrioventricular conduction block, have been reported in patients with myocarditis. We performed an observation study to describe the characteristics and outcomes of inpatients diagnosed with myocarditis complicated by heart block (HB) in a large national cohort. We identified patients with primary ICD-9 codes for myocarditis HB from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) Database from 1998 to 2013. We compared the baseline characteristics and compared clinical outcomes between patients with and without HB, and in patients with/without high degree atrioventricular block (HDAVB). From the NIS database, 31,760 patients had a principal diagnosis of myocarditis and HB was reported in 1.7% of these patients (n=540). Female gender and Asian race were independently associated with HB. Out of 540 patients, 363 patients had HDAVB (67.2%) and 177 patients had not advanced HB (32.8%). Not advanced HB was not associated with an increased mortality rate compared to patients without HB (0% vs. 2.7%, p=0.315). On the other hand, the incidence of cardiogenic shock, respiratory failure and renal failure were higher in patients with HDAVB (26.2% vs. 5.0%, 33.9% vs. 5.9% and 29.2% vs. 5.5%, p
ISSN:1443-9506
1444-2892
DOI:10.1016/j.hlc.2017.12.005