Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

The V6-V1 interpeak interval: a novel criterion for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture

M. Jastrzębski, H. Burri, G. Kiełbasa, K. Curila, P. Moskal, A. Bednarek, M. Rajzer, P. Vijayaraman

. 2022 ; 24 (1) : 40-47. [pub] 20220104

Language English Country Great Britain

Document type Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22011397

AIMS: We hypothesized that during left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing, the various possible combinations of direct capture/non-capture of the septal myocardium and the LBB result in distinct patterns of right and left ventricular activation. This could translate into different combinations of R-wave peak time (RWPT) in V1 and V6. Consequently, the V6-V1 interpeak interval could differentiate the three types of LBB area capture: non-selective (ns-)LBB, selective (s-)LBB, and left ventricular septal (LVS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with unquestionable evidence of LBB capture were included. The V6-V1 interpeak interval, V6RWPT, and V1RWPT were compared between different types of LBB area capture. A total of 468 patients from two centres were screened, with 124 patients (239 electrocardiograms) included in the analysis. Loss of LVS capture resulted in an increase in V1RWPT by ≥15 ms but did not impact V6RWPT. Loss of LBB capture resulted in an increase in V6RWPT by ≥15 ms but only minimally influenced V1RWPT. Consequently, the V6-V1 interval was longest during s-LBB capture (62.3 ± 21.4 ms), intermediate during ns-LBB capture (41.3 ± 14.0 ms), and shortest during LVS capture (26.5 ± 8.6 ms). The optimal value of the V6-V1 interval value for the differentiation between ns-LBB and LVS capture was 33 ms (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 84.7%). A specificity of 100% for the diagnosis of LBB capture was obtained with a cut-off value of >44 ms. CONCLUSION: The V6-V1 interpeak interval is a promising novel criterion for the diagnosis of LBB area capture.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22011397
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220506130612.0
007      
ta
008      
220425s2022 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1093/europace/euab164 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34255038
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Jastrzębski, Marek $u First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Kraków, Poland
245    14
$a The V6-V1 interpeak interval: a novel criterion for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture / $c M. Jastrzębski, H. Burri, G. Kiełbasa, K. Curila, P. Moskal, A. Bednarek, M. Rajzer, P. Vijayaraman
520    9_
$a AIMS: We hypothesized that during left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing, the various possible combinations of direct capture/non-capture of the septal myocardium and the LBB result in distinct patterns of right and left ventricular activation. This could translate into different combinations of R-wave peak time (RWPT) in V1 and V6. Consequently, the V6-V1 interpeak interval could differentiate the three types of LBB area capture: non-selective (ns-)LBB, selective (s-)LBB, and left ventricular septal (LVS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with unquestionable evidence of LBB capture were included. The V6-V1 interpeak interval, V6RWPT, and V1RWPT were compared between different types of LBB area capture. A total of 468 patients from two centres were screened, with 124 patients (239 electrocardiograms) included in the analysis. Loss of LVS capture resulted in an increase in V1RWPT by ≥15 ms but did not impact V6RWPT. Loss of LBB capture resulted in an increase in V6RWPT by ≥15 ms but only minimally influenced V1RWPT. Consequently, the V6-V1 interval was longest during s-LBB capture (62.3 ± 21.4 ms), intermediate during ns-LBB capture (41.3 ± 14.0 ms), and shortest during LVS capture (26.5 ± 8.6 ms). The optimal value of the V6-V1 interval value for the differentiation between ns-LBB and LVS capture was 33 ms (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 84.7%). A specificity of 100% for the diagnosis of LBB capture was obtained with a cut-off value of >44 ms. CONCLUSION: The V6-V1 interpeak interval is a promising novel criterion for the diagnosis of LBB area capture.
650    12
$a Hisův svazek $7 D002036
650    _2
$a kardiostimulace umělá $x metody $7 D002304
650    _2
$a elektrokardiografie $x metody $7 D004562
650    _2
$a převodní systém srdeční $7 D006329
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a mezikomorová přepážka $7 D054088
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Burri, Haran $u Cardiac Pacing Unit, Cardiology Department, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland $1 https://orcid.org/0000000243935338 $7 xx0257833
700    1_
$a Kiełbasa, Grzegorz $u First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Kraków, Poland
700    1_
$a Curila, Karol $u Department of Cardiology, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Moskal, Paweł $u First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Kraków, Poland
700    1_
$a Bednarek, Agnieszka $u First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Kraków, Poland
700    1_
$a Rajzer, Marek $u First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Kraków, Poland
700    1_
$a Vijayaraman, Pugazhendhi $u Geisinger Heart Institute, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
773    0_
$w MED00149837 $t 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 $x 1532-2092 $g Roč. 24, č. 1 (2022), s. 40-47
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34255038 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220425 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220506130605 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1789134 $s 1162595
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 24 $c 1 $d 40-47 $e 20220104 $i 1532-2092 $m Europace $n Europace $x MED00149837
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220425

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options