Key result
An M-beat during PVC-guided pacing predicts selective LBB-capture with ~99% PPV.
Why the study?
Premature ventricular complex-guided left bundle branch pacing was recently described, but the incidence, clinical significance, and ability of a unique template beat (M-beat) to predict selective LBB capture remained unstudied.
Does the presence of an M-beat predict selective left bundle branch capture in patients undergoing PVC-guided LBBP?
Observational (n=210)
Does the presence of an M-beat predict selective left bundle branch capture in patients undergoing PVC-guided LBBP?
The M-beat is a highly specific marker for predicting transient-selective left bundle branch capture during PVC-guided LBBP, independent of baseline QRS morphology.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
M-beat may aid selective LBB capture confirmation during PVC-guided pacing when QRS assessment is challenging; leaves open prospective validation before routine use.
INTRODUCTION: Premature-ventricular-complexes (template/fixation beat) guided left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) was recently described as a novel method of successful lead deployment by rapid rotations. METHODS: We aimed at analyzing the incidence of a unique morphology template beat, which we labelled as 'M-beat' in patients undergoing PVC-guided LBBP, its ability to predict selective LBB-capture and clinical significance. RESULTS: Overall 210 out of 217 attempted-patients (96.7%) underwent successful LBBP. Template beat was noted in 90.4% patients (n = 190) and M-beat in 32.8%(n = 69). Non-selective to selective capture transition demonstrated in 55.2%(n = 116). The QRS duration of the M-beat was 129.3 ± 13.1ms. Patients were divided into two groups: Group-I with M-beat (n = 69;32.8%) and Group-II without M-beat (n = 141; 67.2%). The mean fluoroscopy-time was significantly less in group-I as compared to group-II (13.1 ± 11.1 vs 16.8 ± 12.04 minutes; p-0.03). Patients in group-II required more attempts as compared to group-I for successful lead deployment (2.8 ± 1.09 vs 2.2 ± 1.04; p - 0.01). Six patients showed loss of R-wave in lead-V1 and 2 showed rise in LBB capture threshold by >1V during follow-up in group-II. M-beat had a specificity of 96.77% and sensitivity of 58.62% (positive-predictive-value-98.55%) to predict selective-LBB capture. Myocardial excitability would not modify the occurrence of M-beat as opposed to capture transition response since it could be demonstrated without pacing protocols. When confirmation of LBB-capture itself would be difficult in patients with baseline LBBB-morphology, M-beat with 42.8% incidence predicted selective capture with 96.7% specificity and 66.04% sensitivity(positive-predictive-value-97.22%). CONCLUSION: M-beat is a marker of transient-selective LBB-capture, independent of the local myocardial excitability with high specificity and positive predictive value irrespective of the baseline QRS morphology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ponnusamy et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing PVC-guided left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) (n=210). Presence of M-beat vs. Absence of M-beat was evaluated on Prediction of selective LBB-capture (Specificity 96.77%, Sensitivity 58.62%, PPV 98.55%). The presence of an M-beat during PVC-guided left bundle branch pacing predicted selective LBB-capture with 96.77% specificity and 98.55% positive predictive value.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: