Key result
Left bundle branch pacing demonstrated significantly shorter lead tip-to-LV septal border distances at end-diastole compared to left ventricular septal pacing (0.93 vs 2.12 mm, p<0.001).
Why the study?
Does delayed fluoroscopic left ventricular angiography accurately differentiate lead tip positioning between left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing?
Observational (n=76)
Does delayed fluoroscopic left ventricular angiography accurately differentiate lead tip positioning between left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing?
Delayed fluoroscopic left ventricular angiography is a feasible and practical intra-procedural imaging adjunct to confirm lead depth and differentiate left bundle branch pacing from left ventricular septal pacing.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Delayed LVG may differentiate LBBP from LVSP lead depth; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before adoption.
Background Current electrocardiography (ECG) and electrogram (EGM) criteria for confirming left bundle branch (LBB) capture may be inconclusive in certain clinical scenarios. Real-time imaging methods to evaluate lead positioning during LBB pacing (LBBP) remain limited. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of delayed fluoroscopic left ventricular angiography (LVG) for real-time visualization of lead position during LBBP. Methods Patients undergoing LBB area pacing with delayed LVG were classified as LBBP or LV septal pacing (LVSP) according to EGM-based capture criteria. LBB capture was identified by fascicular potentials, morphology transitions, or a stepwise ECG/EGM algorithm; lead tip–to–LV and right ventricular (RV) septal border distances were measured at end-systole and end-diastole, with RV distance representing total lead insertion length. Results 76 patients were included (LBBP n=51; LVSP n=25). Pacing threshold, impedance, R-wave amplitude, and stimulus-to-V6 left ventricular activation time (LVAT) did not differ significantly between the groups. The QRS-onset to V6 LVAT was shorter in the LBBP group compared to the LVSP group (33.3±10.6 ms vs. 41.4±12.9 ms, p < 0.05). Delayed LVG demonstrated significantly shorter lead tip–to–LV septal border distances in the LBBP group at both end-diastole (0.93±0.35 mm vs. 2.12 ±0.90 mm) and end-systole (0.87±0.42 mm vs. 2.01±0.99 mm, both p < 0.001), with greater lead insertion depth observed in the LBBP group (13.4 ±1.2 mm vs. 12.9±0.9 mm, p < 0.05, at end-diastole). No contrast-related renal complications were noted. Conclusions Delayed LVG provides a practical intra-procedural imaging method adjunct for real-time visualization of lead position during LBBP, particularly when capture criteria are uncertain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing (n=76). Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) vs. Left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) was evaluated on Lead tip-to-left ventricular septal border distance at end-diastole (p=<0.001). Left bundle branch pacing demonstrated significantly shorter lead tip-to-LV septal border distances at end-diastole compared to left ventricular septal pacing (0.93 vs 2.12 mm, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: