Key result
Left bundle branch pacing yielded a significantly shorter stimulus-to-left ventricular activation time compared to left ventricular septal pacing (47.5 ms vs 64.5 ms, p<0.001).
Why the study?
Does left bundle branch pacing exhibit distinct electrophysiological and histological characteristics compared to left ventricular septal pacing in a self-controlled canine model?
Does left bundle branch pacing exhibit distinct electrophysiological and histological characteristics compared to left ventricular septal pacing in a self-controlled canine model?
Absolute Event Rate: 47.5% vs 64.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
In a canine model, an abrupt Stim-LVAT reduction ≥10 ms, a paced V6 QRS upstroke-to-downstroke ratio <1, and a Stim-retro-His interval ≤25 ms accurately discriminated true left bundle branch capture from left ventricular septal pacing.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied Healthy canine pacing model (n=8). Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) vs. Left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) was evaluated on Stimulus-to-left ventricular activation time (Stim-LVAT) (p=<0.001). Left bundle branch pacing yielded a significantly shorter stimulus-to-left ventricular activation time compared to left ventricular septal pacing (47.5 ms vs 64.5 ms, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: