Evidence Hub

Association of common QT-prolonging medications with arrhythmic risk in patients with bundle branch block: A stratified cohort analysis in left bundle branch block vs. right bundle branch block phenotypes

Evan Derector, Tirth Patel, Hiroto Watanabe, Diana M. Solomon, C. Potestio

Heart & lung : the journal of critical care, 2026

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Bundle branch block (BBB) affects 11-17% of adults over 80 and is associated with mortality and heart failure. Conventional QTc formulae overestimate repolarization in wide QRS complexes, with clinicians holding symptom-management therapies based on inaccurate measurements.

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study utilized the MIMIC-IV database to examine arrhythmogenic risk by drug class and BBB phenotype.

METHODS

Adult ICU admissions with BBB were stratified by drug exposure: amiodarone, high-risk anti-arrhythmics (sotalol, dofetilide, procainamide, ibutilide, quinidine, disopyramide), and common non-cardiac QT-prolonging agents (haloperidol, ondansetron, quetiapine, methadone, levofloxacin, azithromycin). The primary outcome was a composite of ventricular arrhythmia and cardiac arrest; a sensitivity analysis restricted to ventricular arrhythmia was performed. Propensity score matching (1:1) with time-varying Cox regression addressed confounding and immortal time bias.

RESULTS

The matched cohort included 1722 admissions (LBBB =1252; RBBB =470). Common non-cardiac agents were not associated with the composite outcome in LBBB (HR 0.96, p = 0.83) or RBBB (HR 0.61, p = 0.24; 28 events, hypothesis-generating). Amiodarone was associated with the composite (LBBB: HR 3.63, p 500 ms, common agents remained non-significant.

CONCLUSION

Common non-cardiac QT-prolonging medications were not associated with increased risk in patients with BBB, even with prolonged QTc. The…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free