Programmed deep septal pacing for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture.
Jastrzebski, M.; Moskal, P.; Kusiak, A.; Bednarek, A.; Sondej, T.; Kielbasa, G.; Bednarski, A.; Vijayaraman, P.; Czarnecka, D.
Show abstract
BackgroundDuring permanent deep septal pacing, it is important to confirm left bundle branch (LBB) capture.\n\nObjectiveThe effective refractory period (ERP) of the working myocardium is different than the ERP of the LBB; we hypothesized that it should be possible to differentiate LBB capture from septal myocardial capture using programmed extra-stimulus technique.\n\nMethodsIn consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation who received pacing lead in a deep septal position programmed pacing was delivered from this lead. Responses to programmed pacing were categorized on the basis of QRS morphology of the extrastimuli as: myocardial (broader QRS, often slurred), selective (narrower QRS, preceded by an isoelectric interval) or non-diagnostic (unequivocal change).\n\nResultsProgrammed deep septal pacing was performed 269 times in 143 patients; in every patient with the use of an 8-beat basic drive train of 600 ms and when possible also during supraventricular rhythm. Responses diagnostic for LBB capture were observed in 114 (79.7%) of patients. Selective LBB paced QRS was more often seen when premature beats were introduced during the intrinsic rhythm rather than after the basic drive train. The average septal-myocardial refractory period was significantly shorter than the LBB refractory period: 263.0{+/-}34.4 ms vs. 318.0{+/-}37.4 ms.\n\nConclusionsA novel maneuver for the diagnosis of LBB capture during deep septal pacing, was formulated, assessed and found as diagnostically valuable. This method, based on the differences in refractoriness between LBB and the septal myocardium is unique in enabling the visualization of components of the usually fused, non-selective LBB paced QRS complex.\n\nGraphical abstract O_FIG_DISPLAY_L [Figure 1] M_FIG_DISPLAY C_FIG_DISPLAY
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Machine Learning prediction of cardiac resynchronisation therapy response from combination of clinical and model-driven data 95%
- A compact multifunctional model of the rabbit atrioventricular node with dual pathways 94%
- A Reproducible Protocol to Assess Arrhythmia Vulnerability in Silico: Pacing at the End of the Effective Refractory Period 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Ventricular anatomical complexity and gender differences impact predictions from computational models 94%
- Predictors and outcomes of Cardiac Dyssynchrony among patients with heart failure attending Benjamin Mkapa Hospital in Dodoma, central Tanzania: A protocol of prospective-longitudinal study 94%
- High-resolution Spatiotemporal Changes in Dominant Frequency and Structural Organization During Persistent Atrial Fibrillation 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Smartwatch Facilitated Remote Health Care for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Amid COVID-19 Pandemic 94%
- Surgical strategy for atrial functional mitral regurgitation with atrial fibrillation 94%
- The Effect of Medical Therapy on Reducing the Risk of Pacing Induced Cardiomyopathy 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of electrophysiological left bundle branch pacing characteristics in different bilateral electrode pacing vector configurations 98%
- Electrocardiographic Abnormalities and Troponin Elevation in COVID-19 94%
- Mid-term subclinical myocardial injury detection in patients recovered from COVID-19 according pulmonary lesion severity 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.