Cited by 16Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments

Comparison between conduction system pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy in right bundle branch block patients

Open access
Strocchi, Marina, Gillette, Karli, Neic, Aurel, Elliott, Mark K., Wijesuriya, Nadeev, Mehta, Vishal, Vigmond, Edward J., Plank, Gernot +2 more·2022·Frontiers in Physiology

Abstract

A significant number of right bundle branch block (RBBB) patients receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), despite lack of evidence for benefit in this patient group. His bundle (HBP) and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel CRT delivery methods, but their effect on RBBB remains understudied. We aim to compare pacing-induced electrical synchrony during conventional CRT, HBP, and LBP in RBBB patients with different conduction disturbances, and to investigate whether alternative ways of delivering LBP improve response to pacing. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart geometries each including a His-Purkinje system with proximal right bundle branch block (RBBB). We simulated RBBB combined with left anterior and posterior fascicular blocks (LAFB and LPFB). Additionally, RBBB was simulated in the presence of slow conduction velocity (CV) in the myocardium, left ventricular (LV) or right ventricular (RV) His-Purkinje system, and whole His-Purkinje system. Electrical synchrony was measured by the shortest interval to activate 90% of the ventricles (BIVAT-90). Compared to baseline, HBP significantly improved activation times for RBBB alone (BIVAT-90: 66.9 ± 5.5 ms vs. 42.6 ± 3.8 ms, p < 0.01), with LAFB (69.5 ± 5.0 ms vs. 58.1 ± 6.2 ms, p < 0.01), with LPFB (81.8 ± 6.6 ms vs. 62.9 ± 6.2 ms, p < 0.01), with slow myocardial CV (119.4 ± 11.4 ms vs. 97.2 ± 10.0 ms, p < 0.01) or slow CV in the whole His-Purkinje system (102.3 ± 7.0 ms vs. 75.5 ± 5.2 ms, p < 0.01). LBP was only effective in RBBB cases if combined with anodal capture of the RV septum myocardium (BIVAT-90: 66.9 ± 5.5 ms vs. 48.2 ± 5.2 ms, p < 0.01). CRT significantly reduced activation times in RBBB in the presence of severely slow RV His-Purkinje CV (95.1 ± 7.9 ms vs. 84.3 ± 9.3 ms, p < 0.01) and LPFB (81.8 ± 6.6 ms vs. CRT: 72.9 ± 8.6 ms, p < 0.01). Both CRT and HBP were ineffective with severely slow CV in the LV His-Purkinje system. HBP is effective in RBBB patients with otherwise healthy myocardium and Purkinje system, while CRT and LBP are ineffective. Response to LBP improves when LBP is combined with RV septum anodal capture. CRT is better than HBP only in patients with severely slow CV in the RV His-Purkinje system, while CV slowing of the whole His-Purkinje system and the myocardium favor HBP over CRT.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fphys.2022.1011566

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These models were used in [41-43] to study the efficacy of different cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing protocols for heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.

    “These models were used in [41–43] to study the efficacy of different cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) pacing protocols for heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB).”

    From Credibility assessment of in silico clinical trials for medical devices (2024) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says the models were used to study CRT and other pacing methods in heart-failure patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB), not left bundle branch block (LBBB). The Discussion, §4.1 Limitations (page unavailable), likewise describes the study as a comparison of pacing modalities in the presence of RBBB. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In these studies, both subject-specific and synthetic cohorts were created.

    “In these studies, both subject-specific and synthetic cohorts were created.”

    From Credibility assessment of in silico clinical trials for medical devices (2024) · cites this paper as [41]

    Materials and methods describes a cohort of 24 patient-derived heart meshes used in the simulations. The Limitations section says the models included synthetically generated His–Purkinje systems, but it does not describe a separate synthetic cohort; the meshes were also generated in a previous study rather than created here. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Synthetic patients were created from the subject-specific virtual patients by introducing different presentations of electrophysiology pathologies in each patient.

    “Synthetic patients were then created from the subject-specific virtual patients, by introducing different presentations of electrophysiology pathologies in each patient (case B in Fig 1).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Arnold A. D. Shun-Shin M. J. Keene D. Howard J. P. Afzal Sohaib S. M. Wright I. J. (2018). His resynchronization therapy vs. biventricular pacing for heart failure with LBBB: A within-patient comparison of effects on acute haemodynamic function and ventricular activation. EP Europace 20 (4), iv25. 10.1093/europace/euy201.001 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Strocchi, M., Gillette, K., Neic, A., Elliott, M. K., Wijesuriya, N., Mehta, V., Vigmond, E. J., Plank, G., Rinaldi, C. A., & Niederer, S. A.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Medical University of Graz (AT)
  • Université de Bordeaux (FR)
Corresponding author
Strocchi, Marina
Venue
Frontiers in Physiology
Published
2022-09-21
Volume
13
Pages
1011566-1011566
ISSN
1664-042X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4296738439
Cited by
16
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Physiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Wellcome (WT 203148/Z/16/Z)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (WT 203148/Z/16/Z EP/P01268X/1)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01-HL152256)
  • European Research Council (453 (864055))
  • British Heart Foundation (RG/20/4/34803)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Keywords
right bundle branch block, cardiac resynchronization therapy, His bundle pacing, His-Purkinje system, ventricular activation, left anterior fascicular block, left posterior fascicular block, atrial fibrillation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review