Cited by 8Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments

Leadless biventricular left bundle and endocardial lateral wall pacing versus left bundle only pacing in left bundle branch block patients

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

Abstract

Biventricular endocardial (BIV-endo) pacing and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel delivery methods for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Both pacing methods can be delivered through leadless pacing, to avoid risks associated with endocardial or transvenous leads. We used computational modelling to quantify synchrony induced by BIV-endo pacing and LBP through a leadless pacing system, and to investigate how the right-left ventricle (RV-LV) delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect response. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart meshes inclusive of His-Purkinje networks with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Leadless biventricular (BIV) pacing was simulated by adding an RV apical stimulus and an LV lateral wall stimulus (BIV-endo lateral) or targeting the left bundle (BIV-LBP), with an RV-LV delay set to 5 ms. To test effect of prolonged RV-LV delays and RV pacing location, the RV-LV delay was increased to 35 ms and/or the RV stimulus was moved to the RV septum. BIV-endo lateral pacing was less sensitive to increased RV-LV delays, while RV septal pacing worsened response compared to RV apical pacing, especially for long RV-LV delays. To investigate how left bundle capture affects response, we computed 90% BIV activation times (BIVAT-90) during BIV-LBP with selective and non-selective capture, and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), simulated by pacing 1 cm below the left bundle. Non-selective LBP was comparable to selective LBP. LBBAP was worse than selective LBP (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 62.7 ± 6.5, p < 0.01), but it still significantly reduced activation times from baseline. Finally, we compared leadless LBP with RV pacing against optimal LBP delivery through a standard lead system by simulating BIV-LBP and selective LBP alone with and without optimized atrioventricular delay (AVD). Although LBP alone with optimized AVD was better than BIV-LBP, when AVD optimization was not possible BIV-LBP outperformed LBP alone, because the RV pacing stimulus shortened RV activation (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 66.9 ± 5.1 ms, p < 0.01). BIV-endo lateral pacing or LBP delivered through a leadless system could potentially become an alternative to standard CRT. RV-LV delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect leadless pacing efficacy and should be considered in future trial designs.

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.2022.1049214

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • 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 [43]

    Methods (Electrophysiology simulations; page unavailable) describes 24 heart geometries derived from patients, but says they were published in an earlier study rather than created here. The same section describes generating a His-Purkinje network for each geometry, and Discussion (Limitations; page unavailable) calls those networks synthetic. The paper therefore supports patient-derived models with synthetic components, not the creation of separate subject-specific and synthetic cohorts. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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).”
  • 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).”

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 37 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. Europace 20 (Suppl. 4), iv25. 10.1093/europace/euy201.001 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Strocchi, M., Wijesuriya, N., Elliott, M. K., Gillette, K., Neic, A., Mehta, V., Vigmond, E. J., Plank, G., Rinaldi, C. A., & Niederer, S. A.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Medical University of Graz (AT)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Strocchi, Marina
Venue
Frontiers in Physiology
Published
2022-12-14
Volume
13
Pages
1049214-1049214
ISSN
1664-042X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4311329351
Cited by
8
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2
FWCI
1.22
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)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (WT 203148/Z/16/Z EP/P01268X/1)
  • Wellcome (WT 203148/Z/16/Z)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01-HL152256)
  • European Research Council (864055)
  • British Heart Foundation (RG/20/4/34803)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-10-IAHU-04)
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
left bundle branch block, leadless pacing, cardiac resynchronization therapy, ventricular synchrony, atrioventricular delay optimization, computational cardiac modeling, ventricular activation time, pacing site selection, 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