That statement is a common teaching shortcut, and it is only partly correct. It is a traditional definition, but it doesn't hold up on physiology. Your two examples need to be treated separately.
Where the idea comes from
The older teaching was that RBBB plus a left fascicular block (bifascicular) plus a prolonged PR means the third fascicle is delayed. That would make the block "incomplete trifascicular". Fuster and Hurst's The Heart, 15th Edition, notes the term "evolved when there was a combination of two fascicles showing conduction delay and/or block and additional PR interval prolongation."
Why it is inaccurate
1. A long PR interval does not localize the delay to the third fascicle.
The PR interval covers the atria, AV node, His bundle, bundle branches and Purkinje fibers. Delay at any of these sites prolongs it. In first-degree AV block, the delay is in the AV node in about 60% of cases, in the His-Purkinje system in some, and in both in others. - Fuster and Hurst's The Heart, 15th Edition
The
Merck Manual calls this combination "sometimes incorrectly called trifascicular block", because first-degree block is usually AV nodal in origin. It reserves "true" trifascicular block for RBBB with alternating left anterior and posterior hemiblock, or alternating LBBB and RBBB.
2. Prognosis is not different.
Fuster and Hurst say first-degree AV block has an excellent prognosis even with chronic bifascicular block, because progression to third-degree block is low. It needs no specific therapy.
LITFL cites similar progression to complete heart block for bifascicular block alone and for bifascicular block with first-degree AV block or Mobitz I (about 1% per year).
What to do with each of your two examples
| Finding with bifascicular block | Likely site | Interpretation |
|---|
| Prolonged PR (first-degree AV block) | Usually AV node, sometimes His-Purkinje | Not true trifascicular block. Low risk, observe. |
| Mobitz I (Wenckebach) | Usually AV node | Not trifascicular. Low risk. |
| Mobitz II | Infranodal (His-Purkinje) | Real evidence of severe distal disease. High risk of complete heart block, so pace. |
| Alternating RBBB and LBBB | All fascicles intermittently | True trifascicular block. Pace. |
| Complete (third-degree) block with RBBB plus fascicular block pattern | Infranodal | True trifascicular block. Pace. |
So Mobitz II with bifascicular block is the more convincing infranodal evidence, but Mobitz I is not. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 22E, lists type II second-degree AV block, intermittent third-degree block and alternating bundle branch block as pacemaker indications in asymptomatic bifascicular or trifascicular block.
How to tell if the PR delay is nodal or infranodal
An electrophysiology study measures the His-ventricular (HV) interval. A markedly prolonged HV interval, or block below the His, indicates infranodal disease and supports pacing. - Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 22E. Symptom to Diagnosis: An Evidence Based Guide, 4th Edition, lists unexplained syncope with chronic bifascicular block as an indication, especially if the HV interval is 70 ms or more.
Exam tip
In many exams, "bifascicular block plus first-degree AV block" is still keyed as "trifascicular block". If the question asks for the textbook label, use it. The clinical meaning is different: a long PR is not proof of infranodal disease, so the decision to pace rests on symptoms (syncope), Mobitz II, alternating bundle branch block, complete block, or a prolonged HV interval.
I only searched the web once and did not find a guideline document for the exact wording. The guideline points above come from textbook and secondary sources, so check the current ACC/AHA/HRS bradycardia guideline if you need exact recommendation classes.