Key result
Selective LBBP shows strong V-V6 RWPT correlation in concordant electrograms with LBB potential.
Why the study?
Preliminary observations had identified distinct ventricular EGM morphologies in patients with recordable LBB potentials during selective LBB pacing. This study sought to extend those observations to patients with and without LBB potentials and to characterize the electrophysiological features and mechanistic correlates of these EGM phenotypes.
How do intrinsic and paced ventricular electrogram morphologies (concordant, similar, discordant) correlate with V6 R-wave peak times in patients undergoing selective left bundle branch pacing with and without recordable LBB potentials?
Cohort (n=387)
How do intrinsic and paced ventricular electrogram morphologies (concordant, similar, discordant) correlate with V6 R-wave peak times in patients undergoing selective left bundle branch pacing with and without recordable LBB potentials?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Continuous recording with a 200 Hz high-pass filter confirms selective LBB pacing, where concordant or similar intrinsic and paced ventricular electrograms indicate shared conduction pathways while discordant electrograms suggest distinct conduction routes.
Aims The electrophysiological transition from non‐selective to selective capture with electrogram (EGM)‐splitting during threshold testing is the gold standard for verifying left‐bundle‐branch (LBB) capture in LBB‐area pacing. Our preliminary study identified distinct ventricular EGM morphologies in patients with recordable LBB potentials. The present study extends these observations to patients with and without LBB potentials and characterizes the electrophysiological features and potential mechanistic correlates of these EGM phenotypes during selective LBB (S‐LBB) pacing. Methods Patients with confirmed S‐LBB pacing were categorized into three groups based on the comparison between intrinsic and paced ventricular EGM morphologies: concordant (CE), similar (SE), and discordant (DE). Baseline characteristics, pacing indications, pacing parameters, and V6 R‐wave peak times (RWPTs) were analyzed. Results S‐LBB pacing was achieved in 387 patients (86.8%). After excluding patients with LBBB, an LBB potential was recorded in 276/341 patients (80.9%). Among patients with an LBB potential, V‐V6(P) RWPT and V‐V6(S) RWPT were strongly correlated in the CE ( r = 0.889) and SE groups ( r = 0.825), whereas V‐V6(S) RWPT was significantly shorter in the DE group. Among patients without an LBB potential, the DE group also showed a shorter V‐V6(S) RWPT. There was a strong correlation between V‐V6(P) RWPT and V‐V6(S) RWPT in the CE group ( r = 0.815), while the DE group exhibited a poor correlation ( r = 0.351). Conclusions Continuous recording using a 200 Hz high‐pass filter effectively confirms S‐LBB pacing by revealing discrete EGM signals. Concordant or similar intrinsic and paced EGMs may suggest shared conduction pathways, whereas discordant EGMs might reflect distinct conduction routes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Patients undergoing selective left bundle branch (S-LBB) pacing (n=387). Selective left bundle branch (S-LBB) pacing with concordant (CE), similar (SE), or discordant (DE) ventricular electrogram morphologies vs. Patients with vs without recordable LBB potentials and across CE, SE, and DE groups was evaluated on Correlation between intrinsic V-V6(S) R-wave peak time (RWPT) and paced V-V6(P) RWPT (r = 0.889 (CE with LBB potential), r = 0.825 (SE with LBB potential), r = 0.815 (CE without LBB potential), r = 0.351 (DE without LBB potential)). Selective left bundle branch pacing showed strong V-V6 RWPT correlations in concordant (r=0.889) and similar (r=0.825) electrogram groups with LBB potential, but poor correlation in discordant groups.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: