Key result
Right ventricular septal pacing requires a systematic multi-view fluoroscopic approach, as conventional single-view fluoroscopy and ECG criteria are inadequate for confirming true septal lead position.
Highlights the inadequacy of conventional fluoroscopic and ECG features for confirming ventricular septal lead position and emphasizes the need for a systematic approach.
May warrant multi-view fluoroscopy for RV septal lead confirmation; leaves open prospective validation of standardized protocols.
Adverse hemodynamics of right ventricular (RV) pacing is known for years. Several studies have revealed that adverse outcomes of RV apical pacing are directly linked to cumulative percentage of ventricular pacing. Algorithms to minimize ventricular pacing are only effective if there is good atrioventricular (AV) conduction. A need for an alternate site for ventricular pacing is evident in patients with high presumed ventricular pacing burden. Most studied alternate site for ventricular pacing is ventricular septum (outflow tract septum and mid-septum). Conventionally septal position of the ventricular pacing lead is confirmed by fluoroscopic appearance of the lead and characteristics electrocardiographic (ECG) features. However, several recent studies have challenged these fluoroscopic and ECG features as to be inadequate. So, there is need for a systematic approach for septal positioning of the ventricular lead.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Das et al. (2018) conducted a review in Pacemaker indication requiring ventricular pacing. Right ventricular septal pacing vs. Right ventricular apical pacing was evaluated. Right ventricular septal pacing requires a systematic multi-view fluoroscopic approach, as conventional single-view fluoroscopy and ECG criteria are inadequate for confirming true septal lead position.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: