Search

We examined the relations between right bundle branch block (RBBB) and clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes among a broad spectrum of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Admission electrocardiograms of patients enrolled in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) electrocardiogram substudy and the Canadian ACS Registry I were analyzed independently at a blinded core laboratory. We performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the independent prognostic significance of admission RBBB on in-hospital and 6-month mortality. Of 11,830 eligible patients with ACS (mean age 65; 66% non-ST-elevation ACS), 5% had RBBB. RBBB on admission was associated with older age, male sex, more cardiovascular risk factors, worse Killip class, and higher GRACE risk score (all p <0.01). Patients with RBBB less frequently received in-hospital cardiac catheterization, coronary revascularization, or reperfusion therapy (all p <0.05). The RBBB group had higher unadjusted in-hospital (8.8% vs 3.8%, p <0.001) and 6-month mortality rates (15.1% vs 7.6%, p <0.001). After adjusting for established prognostic factors in the GRACE risk score, RBBB was a significant independent predictor of in-hospital death (odds ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.07, p = 0.039), but not cumulative 6-month mortality (odds ratio 1.29, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.74, p = 0.098). There was no significant interaction between RBBB and the type of ACS for either in-hospital or 6-month mortality (both p >0.50). In conclusion, across a spectrum of ACS, RBBB was associated with preexisting cardiovascular disease, high-risk clinical features, fewer cardiac interventions, and worse unadjusted outcomes. After adjusting for components of the GRACE risk score, RBBB was a significant independent predictor of early mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We evaluated reporting completeness and transparency in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using administrative data based on 2021 CONSORT Extension for Trials Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) criteria., Study Design and Setting: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register were searched (2011 and 2018). Eligible RCTs used administrative databases for identifying eligible participants or collecting outcomes. We evaluated reporting based on CONSORT-ROUTINE, which modified eight items from CONSORT 2010 and added five new items., Results: Of 33 included trials (76% used administrative databases for outcomes, 3% for identifying participants, 21% both), most were conducted in the United States (55%), Canada (18%), or the United Kingdom (12%). Of eight items modified in the extension; six were adequately reported in a majority (>50%) of trials. For the CONSORT-ROUTINE modification portion of those items, three items were reported adequately in >50% of trials, two in <50%, two only applied to some trials, and one only had wording modifications and was not evaluated. For five new items, four that address use of routine data in trials were reported inadequately in most trials., Conclusion: How administrative data are used in trials is often sub-optimally reported. CONSORT-ROUTINE uptake may improve reporting., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interests All authors have completed the ICJME uniform disclosure form and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)