Key result
Distal LBBAP yields lower biventricular activation times than nominal or proximal pacing positions in simulation models.
Why the study?
The electrical effect of pacing-site position along the left bundle branch during left bundle branch area pacing remains incompletely defined.
Does distal compared to proximal left bundle branch area pacing reduce biventricular activation times in a simulated model of proximal LBBB?
Does distal compared to proximal left bundle branch area pacing reduce biventricular activation times in a simulated model of proximal LBBB?
In a computational model of proximal left bundle branch block, simulated distal LBB area pacing resulted in significantly shorter biventricular activation times compared to proximal or nominal pacing positions.
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may recruit the distal left-sided conduction system, but the electrical effect of pacing-site position along the left bundle branch (LBB) remains incompletely defined. We evaluated this effect in 24 four-chamber virtual heart anatomies using a Reaction-Eikonal finite-element model with rule-based myocardial fibres and algorithmically generated His-Purkinje networks. A modelled proximal His to-LBB disconnection preserved the distal LBB-Purkinje network while interrupting its proximal connection. Six conditions were simulated in each anatomy: a sinoatrial-node (SAN)-initiated left bundle branch block (LBBB) control, right ventricular apical pacing, right ventricular outflow-tract pacing and a modelled non-selective LBB capture configuration at proximal, nominal and distal positions. The primary outcome was BiV_TAT95, the 95th percentile of activation times across left-ventricular, right ventricular and interventricular-septal nodes. The control-versus-paced analysis used a common simulation-clock origin and was interpreted as contextual benchmarking, whereas the positional analysis used matched direct ventricular stimulation. In the matched positional analysis, median BiV_TAT95 was 104.5, 93.5 and 88.5 ms for proximal, nominal and distal LBBAP, respectively (Friedman chi-square = 48.000, P < 0.001, Kendall's W = 1.000); every anatomy followed distal < nominal < proximal. In three selected anatomies, a 20% decrease or increase in the prescribed myocardial conduction speeds altered absolute activation times but preserved this ordering in all nine anatomy-by-speed combinations. Under the tested homogeneous substrate and modelled non-selective capture configuration, the distal tested position produced the lowest simulated BiV_TAT95; this does not imply superiority for every activation metric. This conditional prediction requires validation against patient-specific electrical data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
唐标 et al. (2026) studied Left bundle branch block (n=24). Distal left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs. Nominal and proximal LBBAP positions was evaluated on BiV_TAT95 (95th percentile of activation times across left-ventricular, right ventricular and interventricular-septal nodes) (p=<0.001). In 24 simulated heart anatomies, distal left bundle branch area pacing produced a lower median BiV_TAT95 (88.5 ms) than nominal (93.5 ms) or proximal (104.5 ms) positions (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from Medical Engineering & Physics