Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Physiology-Based Electrocardiographic Criteria for Left Bundle Branch Capture

View ORCID ProfileMarek Jastrzębski, Grzegorz Kiełbasa, Karol Curila, Paweł Moskal, Agnieszka Bednarek, Marek Rajzer, Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.24.20248827
Marek Jastrzębski
1First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Krakow, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Marek Jastrzębski
  • For correspondence: mcjastrz@cyf-kr.edu.pl
Grzegorz Kiełbasa
1First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Krakow, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karol Curila
2Department of Cardiology, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paweł Moskal
1First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Krakow, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Agnieszka Bednarek
1First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Krakow, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marek Rajzer
1First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Krakow, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman
3Geisinger Heart Institute, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background During left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing, it is important to confirm that the capture of the LBB is achieved, not just the capture of only the adjacent left ventricular myocardium (LV septal capture). Our aim was to establish ECG criteria for LBB capture by analyzing ECGs with confirmed LBB capture and non-capture. We hypothesized that since LBB pacing results in physiologic depolarization of the left ventricle then the native QRS can serve as a reference for the diagnosis of LBB capture in the same patient.

Methods Only patients with direct evidence of LBB capture (output-dependent or refractoriness-dependent QRS morphology transition) were included. Several QRS characteristics were compared between the native rhythm and different types of LBB area capture. Receiver-operator characteristics analysis was performed to determine the optimal V6 R-wave peak time (RWPT) cut-off for LBB diagnosis.

Results A total of 357 ECG tracing (124 patients) were analyzed: 118 with native rhythm, 124 with non-selective LBB capture, 69 with selective LBB capture and 46 with LV septal capture. Our hypotheses that during LBB capture the paced V6 RWPT (measured from QRS onset) equals the native V6 RWPT and that the paced V6 RWPT (measured from the stimulus) equals the LBB potential to V6 R-wave peak interval were positively validated. Criteria based on these rules had sensitivity and specificity of 98.0–88.2% and 85.7–95.4%, respectively. The optimal and 100% specific V6 RWPT values for differentiation between LBB capture and LV septal capture in patients with narrow QRS / right bundle branch block were 83 ms and 74 ms, respectively; while in patients with left bundle branch block/asystole/ventricular escape the optimal and 100% specific V6 RWPT values were 101 ms and 80 ms, respectively.

Conclusions Novel criteria for LBB capture were developed and optimal V6 RWPT cut-offs were determined.

What this study adds

  • We showed that LBB pacing truly reproduce the physiological depolarization of the left ventricle since the paced V6 RWPT equals the native conduction V6 RWPT.

  • Individualized LBB capture criteria, that use the native QRS as a reference, were developed.

  • The optimal V6 RWPT values for differentiation between LBB capture and LV septal capture were determined, separately for patients with healthy and diseased LBB.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This paper was partialy supported by the Charles University Research Program Q38, Research Centre program No. UNCE/MED/002, 260530/SVV/2020

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Jagiellonian University Bioethical committee

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 26, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Physiology-Based Electrocardiographic Criteria for Left Bundle Branch Capture
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Physiology-Based Electrocardiographic Criteria for Left Bundle Branch Capture
Marek Jastrzębski, Grzegorz Kiełbasa, Karol Curila, Paweł Moskal, Agnieszka Bednarek, Marek Rajzer, Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman
medRxiv 2020.12.24.20248827; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.24.20248827
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Physiology-Based Electrocardiographic Criteria for Left Bundle Branch Capture
Marek Jastrzębski, Grzegorz Kiełbasa, Karol Curila, Paweł Moskal, Agnieszka Bednarek, Marek Rajzer, Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman
medRxiv 2020.12.24.20248827; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.24.20248827

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Cardiovascular Medicine
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (70)
  • Allergy and Immunology (168)
  • Anesthesia (51)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (455)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (83)
  • Dermatology (55)
  • Emergency Medicine (159)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (191)
  • Epidemiology (5294)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (198)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (760)
  • Geriatric Medicine (80)
  • Health Economics (214)
  • Health Informatics (702)
  • Health Policy (362)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (224)
  • Hematology (100)
  • HIV/AIDS (165)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5934)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (367)
  • Medical Education (105)
  • Medical Ethics (25)
  • Nephrology (83)
  • Neurology (772)
  • Nursing (43)
  • Nutrition (135)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (146)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (234)
  • Oncology (481)
  • Ophthalmology (153)
  • Orthopedics (39)
  • Otolaryngology (97)
  • Pain Medicine (39)
  • Palliative Medicine (20)
  • Pathology (141)
  • Pediatrics (223)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (138)
  • Primary Care Research (99)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (865)
  • Public and Global Health (2035)
  • Radiology and Imaging (354)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (159)
  • Respiratory Medicine (287)
  • Rheumatology (94)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (74)
  • Sports Medicine (77)
  • Surgery (110)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (29)
  • Urology (39)