Key result
True RVOT septal pacing was independently predicted by narrower paced QRS duration (139.2 vs 155.5 ms) and a negative or isoelectric QRS vector in lead I (76% vs 32%; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Do specific electrocardiographic parameters differentiate true RVOT septal pacing from non-septal pacing in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation?
Observational (n=151)
Do specific electrocardiographic parameters differentiate true RVOT septal pacing from non-septal pacing in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 139.2% vs 155.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
Narrower paced QRS duration (≤145 ms) and a negative or isoelectric QRS vector in lead I can reliably differentiate true RVOT septal pacing from non-septal pacing.
ECG criteria may aid identification of true RVOT septal pacing; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND: Electrocardiographic (ECG) characteristics of true right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) septal pacing have not been clearly demonstrated. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that ECG parameters would help operators differentiate true RVOT septum from non-septal septum. METHODS: We analyzed 151 patients who underwent pacemaker implantation with a ventricular lead in the RVOT. Transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) determination of pacing sites was applied in all patients after implantation. A 12-lead ECG was recorded during forced ventricular pacing. RESULTS: According to TTE orientation, pacing at the RVOT septum was achieved in 94 patients (62.3%). Compared with nonseptal pacing, septal pacing had significantly shorter QRS duration (139.2 ± 18.5 ms vs 155.5 ± 14.7 ms; P < 0.001). More frequent negative or isoelectric QRS vector in lead I (76% vs 32%; P < 0.001), lead II/III R-wave amplitude ratio < 1 (52% vs 25%; P = 0.001), and aVR/aVL QS-wave amplitude ratio < 1 (59% vs 32%; P = 0.001) were observed in septal pacing. Transitional zone (TZ) score (3.8 ± 0.96 vs 4.2 ± 0.90; P = 0.004) and TZ index (0.3 ± 0.5 vs 0.6 ± 0.7; P = 0.008) were significantly lower in septal pacing than in nonseptal pacing, respectively. In multivariate analysis, paced QRS duration and negative or isoelectric QRS vector in lead I independently predicted RVOT septal pacing (P < 0.001). At ROC curve analysis, paced QRS duration ≤145 ms identified RVOT septal pacing with 85.1% sensitivity and 78.9% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals the heterogeneity of lead placement within the RVOT. Narrower paced QRS duration and negative or isoelectric QRS vector in lead I independently predict RVOT septal pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wei et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Pacemaker implantation with a ventricular lead in the right ventricular outflow tract (n=151). Right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) septal pacing vs. Nonseptal pacing was evaluated on Paced QRS duration (ms) (p=<0.001). True RVOT septal pacing was independently predicted by narrower paced QRS duration (139.2 vs 155.5 ms) and a negative or isoelectric QRS vector in lead I (76% vs 32%; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: