Key result
LBBAP perforation shows ~79% lower COI amplitude versus final lead position, aiding diagnosis.
Why the study?
Perforation during LBBAP causes a fall in unipolar unfiltered iEGM COI amplitude, but systematic waveform analyses had not been performed.
Do specific intracardiac electrogram waveform parameters identify perforation during left bundle branch area pacing implantation?
Do specific intracardiac electrogram waveform parameters identify perforation during left bundle branch area pacing implantation?
Specific intracardiac electrogram waveform parameters, such as a sensed Q or S amplitude greater than the current of injury amplitude, can accurately diagnose lead perforation during left bundle branch area pacing.
May aid intraoperative LBBAP perforation detection via COI amplitude; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Aims Perforation during left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) results in a fall in the current of injury (COI) amplitude in the unipolar unfiltered electrogram (iEGM), but systematic waveform analyses have not been performed. Our aim was to investigate unipolar iEGM waveforms during perforation and to compare them to those at the final lead position. Methods and results The iEGMS of consecutive patients who had perforation during LBBAP implantation were systematically analysed. A total of 92 patients with perforation were included. In the unfiltered channel, sensed COI amplitude was lower with perforation [3.0 (1.5–4.1) mV] than at the final lead position [14.0 (9.2–17.5) mV, P < 0.0001], as was also the case during pacing. Patients with narrow QRS/non-LBBB typically had wide negative (QS) waveforms during sensing (in 67% of cases), whereas those with LBBB/paced rhythm had positive (wide R/RS) morphologies (in 93% of cases). In the former subgroup, a sensed Q or S amplitude > COI amplitude (which is easy to eyeball during lead deployment) had a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 93% for diagnosing perforation. Waveforms during macroperforation (with loss of capture, n = 27) differed compared to microperforation (with preserved capture, n = 65), with significantly lower COI amplitudes, more frequent QS morphology, and rarer sharp multiphasic components in the ventriculogram of the filtered channel. Conclusion Beyond COI amplitude, additional iEGM waveform parameters may be used to evaluate the presence of LBBAP perforation and should be carefully monitored during lead deployment to improve safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tolppanen et al. (2026) studied this question. In 92 patients, COI amplitude was significantly lower with LBBAP perforation (3.0 mV) vs final lead position (14.0 mV), with waveform changes aiding diagnosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: