Key result
Mid-septal leadless pacemaker placement shows no benefit over apical positioning for LVEF or GLS.
Why the study?
Leadless pacemaker implantation sites vary by cardiac anatomy and operator technique, and the impact of device positioning on myocardial performance and left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony remained unclear.
Does mid-septal versus apical leadless pacemaker implantation improve left ventricular myocardial work indices and reduce mechanical dyssynchrony in patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation?
Observational (n=24)
Does mid-septal versus apical leadless pacemaker implantation improve left ventricular myocardial work indices and reduce mechanical dyssynchrony in patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation?
Leadless pacemaker implantation in the mid-septum versus the right ventricular apex showed no significant differences in early myocardial work performance or mechanical dyssynchrony, whereas longer QRS duration correlated with impaired left ventricular global longitudinal strain.
No early LV function differences by leadless pacemaker site; leaves open whether mid-septal implantation affects long-term outcomes.
Background Transvenous right ventricular (RV) apical pacing has been associated with electrical and mechanical left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony, and impaired LV performance compared with mid-septum pacing. Leadless pacemakers (LP) have been developed to overcome lead-related complications and have been reported to be safe and effective. However, LP implantation sites vary according to cardiac anatomy and operator technique. Although electrical parameters such as QRS duration have been evaluated, the impact of LP positioning on myocardial performance remains unclear. Purpose To evaluate whether LP implantation site influence cardiac function using conventional echocardiographic parameters, myocardial work indices derived from LV strain–pressure analysis and LV mechanical dyssynchrony. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 24 consecutive patients who underwent LP implantation with right ventriculography during the procedure. RV positions were categorized into basal, mid-septum, and apical segments. Post-implantation echocardiography assessed LV ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudinal strain (GLS), global work index (GWI), global constructive work (GCW), global wasted work (GWW), and global work efficiency (GWE). Mechanical dyssynchrony was evaluated using septal-lateral work difference (SLWD) and time to peak GLS. Results The mean age was 85.1 ± 5.7 years; 16 patients (62.5%) were female. Indications for pacing included atrioventricular block (n=20), sick sinus syndrome (n=3), and bradycardic atrial fibrillation (n=1). No devices were implanted in the basal segment; 12 were positioned in the mid-septum and 12 in the apical segment. QRS duration was similar between the two groups (150.8 ± 15.0 vs. 154.3 ± 12.9 ms, p=0.60). There were no significant differences in LVEF, GLS, or myocardial work indices between the mid-septal and apical groups (LVEF: 53.6 ± 8.1 vs. 53.9 ± 11.8%, p=0.82; GLS: −13.8 ± 3.3 vs. −13.6 ± 4.6%, p=1.00; GWI: 1095 ± 332 vs. 1160 ± 535 mmHg%, p=0.47; GCW: 1521 ± 286 vs. 1600 ± 542 mmHg%, p=0.19; GWW: 302 ± 157 vs. 332 ± 251 mmHg%, p=0.98; GWE: 82.9 ± 8.5 vs. 82.2 ± 9.5%, p=1.00). Similarly, SLWD (870 ± 628 vs. 788 ± 612 mmHg%, p=0.75) and time to peak GLS (75.6 ± 117.9 vs. 68.0 ± 75.2 ms, p=0.95) were comparable. Across all patients, QRS duration was significantly associated with GLS (r = 0.45, p=0.03), indicating impaired myocardial deformation with longer QRS duration. In contrast, QRS duration was not significantly associated with GWI (r = 0.32, p=0.14). Conclusions LP implantation in the mid-septum versus apical RV showed no significant differences in myocardial performance or mechanical dyssynchrony. In contrast, QRS prolongation was significantly related to impaired LV deformation, suggesting electrical activation rather than pacing position may play a greater role in early LV mechanics. Larger studies are needed to determine long-term clinical implications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akamatsu et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Bradyarrhythmias requiring leadless pacemaker implantation (atrioventricular block, sick sinus syndrome, bradycardic atrial fibrillation) (n=24). Mid-septal leadless pacemaker implantation vs. Apical leadless pacemaker implantation was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudinal strain (GLS), myocardial work indices (GWI, GCW, GWW, GWE), and mechanical dyssynchrony (p=0.82). Mid-septal vs apical leadless pacemaker positioning showed similar LVEF (53.6% vs 53.9%, p=0.82) and GLS (p=1.00), while QRS duration correlated with impaired GLS (r=0.45, p=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: