Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

23 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

The V6-V1 interpeak interval: a novel criterion for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

We hypothesized that during left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing, the various possible combinations of direct capture/non-capture of the septal myocardium and the LBB result in distinct patterns of right and left ventricular activation. This could translate into different combinations of R-wave peak time (RWPT) in V1 and V6. Consequently, the V6-V1 interpeak interval could differentiate the three types of LBB area capture: non-selective (ns-)LBB, selective (s-)LBB, and left ventricular septal (LVS).

Methods and results

Patients with unquestionable evidence of LBB capture were included. The V6-V1 interpeak interval, V6RWPT, and V1RWPT were compared between different types of LBB area capture. A total of 468 patients from two centres were screened, with 124 patients (239 electrocardiograms) included in the analysis. Loss of LVS capture resulted in an increase in V1RWPT by ≥15 ms but did not impact V6RWPT. Loss of LBB capture resulted in an increase in V6RWPT by ≥15 ms but only minimally influenced V1RWPT. Consequently, the V6-V1 interval was longest during s-LBB capture (62.3 ± 21.4 ms), intermediate during ns-LBB capture (41.3 ± 14.0 ms), and shortest during LVS capture (26.5 ± 8.6 ms). The optimal value of the V6-V1 interval value for the differentiation between ns-LBB and LVS capture was 33 ms (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 84.7%). A specificity of 100% for the diagnosis of LBB capture was obtained with a cut-off value of >44 ms.

Conclusion

The V6-V1 interpeak interval is a promising novel criterion for the diagnosis of LBB area capture.

SUBMITTER: Jastrzebski M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8742628 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Painful Left Bundle Branch Block Syndrome Successfully Treated With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.

Project description:Chest pain may be rarely associated with left bundle branch block (LBBB)-mediated ventricular dys-synchrony has been reported. This article reports 2 such cases, where left bundle branch area pacing resulted in resolution of the LBBB and associated symptoms. By adjusting the atrioventricular delays, the QRS duration was narrowed further by achieving fusion with the intrinsic activation wavefront. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.).

| S-EPMC8298553 | biostudies-literature

Remarkable response to cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing in patients with true left bundle branch block.

Project description:BackgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative means to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).HypothesisLBBP may deliver resynchronization therapy along with an advantage over traditional biventricular (BiV) pacing in clinical outcomes.MethodsHeart failure patients who presented LBBB morphology according to Strauss's criteria and received successful CRT procedure were enrolled in the present study. Propensity score matching was applied to match patients into LBBP-CRT group and BiV-CRT group. Then, the electrographic data, the echocardiographic data and New York heart association (NYHA) class were compared between the groups.ResultsTwenty-one patients with successful LBBP procedure and another 21 matched patients with successful BiV-CRT procedure were finally enrolled in the study. The QRS duration (QRSd) was narrowed from 167.7 ± 14.9 ms to 111.7 ± 12.3 ms (P < .0001) in the LBBP-CRT group and from 163.6 ± 13.8 ms to 130.1 ± 14.0 ms (P < .0001) in the BiV-CRT group. A trend toward better left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was recorded in the LBBP-CRT group (50.9 ± 10.7% vs 44.4 ± 13.3%, P = .12) compared to that in the BiV-CRT group at the 6-month follow-up. A trend toward better echocardiographic response was documented in patients receiving LBBP-CRT procedure (90.5% vs 80.9%, P = .43) and more super CRT response was documented in the LBBP-CRT group (80.9% vs 57.1%, P = .09) compared to that in the BiV-CRT group.ConclusionsLBBP-CRT can dramatically improve the electrical synchrony in heart failure patients with LBBB. Meanwhile, compared with the traditional BiV-CRT, it has a tendency to significantly improve LVEF and enhance the NYHA cardiac function scores.

| S-EPMC7724211 | biostudies-literature

Guidance on left bundle branch pacing using continuous pacing technique and changes in lead V1 characteristics under real-time monitoring.

Project description:BackgroundThe changes in the morphology and characteristics of the V1 leads during left bundle branch capturing still need to be fully understood.ObjectiveThis study aims to provide some suggestions about the LBB capture process through the morphology and characteristics of the V1 lead.MethodLBBP using the continuous pacing and morphology monitoring technique during screw-in using a revolving connector (John Jiang's connecting cable). The morphology and features of V1 leads are recorded by continuous monitoring technology.ResultsThe most common morphology in the LVSP stage is QR, while in the NS-LBBP (low output) stage and the NS-LBBP (lower output) stage, it is rSR. In the S-LBBP stage, it is rsR. The predominant morphology is with r/R waves in S-LBBP, which includes variations like rSR, rsR, rSr, rsr, rR, rs, rS, and R type, making up 96.7% of the total. The r waves in lead V1 are associated with agitated myocardium conducted from the left bundle branch.ConclusionThe initial r-wave in lead V1 may be a marker during the follow-up of patients with selective LBB capture.

| S-EPMC10570442 | biostudies-literature

Direct and indirect capture of the left bundle branch: Dynamic retrograde atrial potential abrupt and gradual decrease.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC9237273 | biostudies-literature

Resynchronization effects and clinical outcomes during left bundle branch area pacing with and without conduction system capture.

Project description:BackgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) includes left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular (LV) septal myocardial pacing (LVSP).HypothesisThe study aimed to assess resynchronization effects and clinical outcomes by LBBAP in heart failure (HF) patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) indications.MethodsLBBAP was successfully performed in 29 consecutive patients and further classified as the LBBP-group (N = 15) and LVSP-group (N = 14) based on the LBBP criteria and novel LV conduction time measurement (LV CT, between LBBAP site and LV pacing (LVP) site). AV-interval optimized LBBP or LVSP, or LVSP combined with LVP (LVSP-LVP) was applied. LV electrical and mechanical synchrony and clinical outcomes were assessed.ResultsAll 15 patients in the LBBP-group received optimized LBBP while 14 patients in the LVSP-group received either optimized LVSP (5) or LVSP-LVP (9). The LV CT during LBBP was significantly faster than that during LVP (p < .001), while LV CT during LVSP were similar to LVP (p = .226). The stimulus to peak LV activation time (Stim-LVAT, 71.2 ± 8.3 ms) and LV mechanical synchrony (TSI-SD, 35.3 ± 9.5 ms) during LBBP were significantly shorter than those during LVSP (Stim-LVAT 89.1 ± 19.5 ms, TSI-SD 49.8 ± 14.4 ms, both p < .05). Following 17(IQR 8) months of follow-up, the improvement of LVEF (26.0%(IQR 16.0)) in the LBBP-group was significantly greater than that in the LVSP-group (6.0%(IQR 20.8), p = .001).ConclusionsLV activation in LBBP propagated significantly faster than that of LVSP. LBBP generated superior electrical and mechanical resynchronization and better LVEF improvement over LVSP in HF patients with CRT indications.

| S-EPMC10018083 | biostudies-literature

Multifaceted Left Bundle Branch Block: What Are the Mechanisms?

Project description:Understanding different mechanisms of aberrant conduction is critical to better evaluate the need for cardiac pacing. Aberrant conduction is caused by 4 distinct electrophysiologic mechanisms: phase 3 block, acceleration-dependent block, phase 4 block, and concealed transseptal conduction. This case offers a unique opportunity to review all aberrant conduction mechanisms in the same patient. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

| S-EPMC8897027 | biostudies-literature

Left bundle branch area pacing: ready for prime time?

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC9043084 | biostudies-literature

Left bundle branch area pacing in congenital heart disease.

Project description:AimsLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be effective and safe. Limited data are available on LBBAP in the congenital heart disease (CHD) population. This study aims to describe the feasibility and safety of LBBAP in CHD patients compared with non-CHD patients.Methods and resultsThis is a single-centre, non-randomized observational study recruiting consecutive patients with bradycardia indication. Demographic data, ECGs, imaging, and procedural data including lead parameters were recorded. A total of 39 patients were included: CHD group (n = 13) and non-CHD group (n = 26). Congenital heart disease patients were younger (55 ± 14.5 years vs. 73.2 ± 13.1, P < 0.001). Acute success was achieved in all CHD patients and 96% (25/26) of non-CHD patients. No complications were encountered in either group. The procedural time for CHD patients was comparable (96.4 ± 54 vs. 82.1 ± 37.9 min, P = 0.356). Sheath reshaping was required in 7 of 13 CHD patients but only in 1 of 26 non-CHD patients, reflecting the complex and distorted anatomy of the patients in this group. Lead parameters were similar in both groups; R wave (11 ± 7 mV vs. 11.5 ± 7.5, P = 0.881) and pacing threshold (0.6 ± 0.3 V vs. 0.7 ± 0.3, P = 0.392). Baseline QRS duration was longer in the CHD group (150 ± 28.2 vs. 118.6 ± 26.6 ms, P = 0.002). Despite a numerically greater reduction in QRS and a similar left ventricular activation time (65.9 ± 6.2 vs. 67 ± 16.8 ms, P = 0.840), the QRS remained longer in the CHD group (135.5 ± 22.4 vs. 106.9 ± 24.7 ms, P = 0.005).ConclusionLeft bundle branch area pacing is feasible and safe in CHD patients as compared to that in non-CHD patients. Procedural and fluoroscopy times did not differ between both groups. Lead parameters were satisfactory and stable over a short-term follow-up.

| S-EPMC9935007 | biostudies-literature

Left bundle branch area pacing in patients with baseline narrow, left, or right bundle branch block QRS patterns: insights into electrocardiographic and echocardiographic features.

Project description:AimsLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a recent technique aiming at preservation of physiological ventricular electrical activation. Our goal was to assess mechanical synchrony parameters in relation to electrocardiographic features during LBBAP performed in routine practice.Methods and resultsFrom June 2020 to August 2021, all patients of our institution with permanent pacemaker implantation indication were eligible for LBBAP. A 'qR' pattern in V1 and a delay from pacing spike to the peak of the R-wave in V6 < 80 ms defined a successful LBBAP. Electrocardiogram and echocardiography were performed during spontaneous rhythm and LBBAP: left ventricular mechanical synchrony (LVMS) parameters using 2D Speckle tracking and interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) were collected. LBBAP was attempted with success in 134/163 patients (82.2%). During LBBAP, the mean QRS width was 104 ± 12 ms. In patients with left bundle branch block (n = 47), LBBAP provided a significant decrease of QRS width from 139 ± 16 to 105 ± 12 ms (P < 0.001) with reduction of LVMS (53 ± 21 vs. 90 ± 46 ms, P = 0.009), and IVMD (14 ± 13 vs. 49 ± 18 ms, P < 0.001). In patients with right bundle branch block (n = 38), LBBAP led to a significant decrease of QRS width from 134 ± 14 to 106 ± 13 ms (P < 0.001) with no effect on LVMS and a reduction of IVMD (17 ± 14 vs. 50 ± 16 ms, P < 0.001).ConclusionLBBAP in routine practice preserved intra-ventricular mechanical synchrony in patients with narrow and RBBB QRS and improved asynchrony parameters in patients with LBBB.

| S-EPMC9935006 | biostudies-literature

New Electrocardiographic Algorithm for the Diagnosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Left Bundle Branch Block.

Project description:Background Current electrocardiographic algorithms lack sensitivity to diagnose acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the presence of left bundle branch block. Methods and Results A multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients with suspected AMI and left bundle branch block, referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention between 2009 and 2018. Pre-2015 patients formed the derivation cohort (n=163, 61 with AMI); patients between 2015 and 2018 formed the validation cohort (n=107, 40 with AMI). A control group of patients without suspected AMI was also studied (n=214). Different electrocardiographic criteria were tested. A total of 484 patients were studied. A new electrocardiographic algorithm (BARCELONA algorithm) was derived and validated. The algorithm is positive in the presence of ST deviation ≥1 mm (0.1 mV) concordant with QRS polarity, in any lead, or ST deviation ≥1 mm (0.1 mV) discordant with the QRS, in leads with max (R|S) voltage (the voltage of the largest deflection of the QRS, ie, R or S wave) ≤6 mm (0.6 mV). In both the derivation and the validation cohort, the BARCELONA algorithm achieved the highest sensitivity (93%-95%), negative predictive value (96%-97%), efficiency (91%-94%) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.92-0.93), significantly higher than previous electrocardiographic rules (P<0.01); the specificity was good in both groups (89%-94%) as well as the control group (90%). Conclusions In patients with left bundle branch block referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the BARCELONA algorithm was specific and highly sensitive for the diagnosis of AMI, leading to a diagnostic accuracy comparable to that obtained by ECG in patients without left bundle branch block.

| S-EPMC7660719 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data