Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026
Distinct intracardiac electrogram waveforms with perforation during left bundle branch area pacing implantation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tolppanen Heli, Valiton Valerian, Stempfel Samuel, Burri Haran
Аннотация
AIMS: Perforation during left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) results in a fall in the current of injury (COI) amplitude in the unipolar unfiltered electrogram (iEGM), but systematic waveform analyses have not been performed. Our aim was to investigate unipolar iEGM waveforms during perforation and to compare them to those at the final lead position.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The iEGMS of consecutive patients who had perforation during LBBAP implantation were systematically analysed. A total of 92 patients with perforation were included. In the unfiltered channel, sensed COI amplitude was lower with perforation [3.0 (1.5-4.1) mV] than at the final lead position [14.0 (9.2-17.5) mV, P < 0.0001], as was also the case during pacing. Patients with narrow QRS/non-LBBB typically had wide negative (QS) waveforms during sensing (in 67% of cases), whereas those with LBBB/paced rhythm had positive (wide R/RS) morphologies (in 93% of cases). In the former subgroup, a sensed Q or S amplitude > COI amplitude (which is easy to eyeball during lead deployment) had a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 93% for diagnosing perforation. Waveforms during macroperforation (with loss of capture, n = 27) differed compared to microperforation (with preserved capture, n = 65), with significantly lower COI amplitudes, more frequent QS morphology, and rarer sharp multiphasic components in the ventriculogram of the filtered channel.
CONCLUSION: Beyond COI amplitude, additional iEGM waveform parameters may be used to evaluate the presence of LBBAP perforation and should be carefully monitored during lead deployment to improve safety.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The iEGMS of consecutive patients who had perforation during LBBAP implantation were systematically analysed. A total of 92 patients with perforation were included. In the unfiltered channel, sensed COI amplitude was lower with perforation [3.0 (1.5-4.1) mV] than at the final lead position [14.0 (9.2-17.5) mV, P < 0.0001], as was also the case during pacing. Patients with narrow QRS/non-LBBB typically had wide negative (QS) waveforms during sensing (in 67% of cases), whereas those with LBBB/paced rhythm had positive (wide R/RS) morphologies (in 93% of cases). In the former subgroup, a sensed Q or S amplitude > COI amplitude (which is easy to eyeball during lead deployment) had a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 93% for diagnosing perforation. Waveforms during macroperforation (with loss of capture, n = 27) differed compared to microperforation (with preserved capture, n = 65), with significantly lower COI amplitudes, more frequent QS morphology, and rarer sharp multiphasic components in the ventriculogram of the filtered channel.
CONCLUSION: Beyond COI amplitude, additional iEGM waveform parameters may be used to evaluate the presence of LBBAP perforation and should be carefully monitored during lead deployment to improve safety.