左束分支面积自动阈值函数与传统右心室导联放置。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Daniel J Friedman, Jessica Burr, Paul W Jones, Nicholas Wold
{"title":"左束分支面积自动阈值函数与传统右心室导联放置。","authors":"Daniel J Friedman, Jessica Burr, Paul W Jones, Nicholas Wold","doi":"10.1111/jce.16696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) leverages the strengths of His bundle pacing (HBP) and traditional myocardial pacing. While automatic threshold (AT) algorithms are often not suitable for HBP leads, their function in LBBAP remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from the LATITUDE remote monitoring system were evaluated retrospectively comparing LBBAP leads to a sample of right ventricular (RV) placed leads. AT accuracy was assessed comparing the nearest in-office (IO) pacing capture threshold (PCT) ± 7 days at 1 and/or 3 months at 0.4 ms pulse width. Methodology from a previous trial (CAPTIVATE, NCT02097290) used for regulatory approval of an AT algorithm for standard RV apical leads was employed, comparing percent of accurate tests, with an accurate test defined as: |AT - IO | ≤ 0.6 V (or ≤ 1 V if IO > 3.5 V). Secondary analysis assessed the percentage of devices with AT turned off during 6 mo follow-up. Statistical comparisons were made using Chi-square tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 1288 devices (798 LBBAP, 490 RV) were evaluated, limited by the in-office visit requirement for comparison. Among LBBAP patients, 677 had an INGEVITY+ lead, 121 FINELINE II. Generators were 668 PM, 128 CRT-D/P, 2 ICD; 694 in RV port, 96 LV, 8 RA. Compared to IO PCT, the AT algorithm accuracy was 96.9% in LBBAP leads and 97.6% in RV leads, (LBBAP vs. RV p = 0.47, Figure 1), both exceeding the 90% target. The median (IQR) difference between AT and IO PCTs for LBBAP leads was 0.1 V (0.0, 0.2 V); 59%, 81% and 91% of AT values were within 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 V of IO, respectively (Figure 2). The AT feature was turned off at similar rates for LBBAP and RV leads in first 6 mo (LBBA 1.8%, RV 0.9%; p = 0.18; Figure 3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AT algorithms' accuracy was high and similar for RV and LBBAP leads in this analysis. Future research is needed to determine if current algorithms are sufficient for achieving conduction system capture when the conduction system threshold is greater than the myocardial threshold.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automatic Threshold Function With Left Bundle Branch Area Versus Traditional Right Ventricular Lead Placement.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel J Friedman, Jessica Burr, Paul W Jones, Nicholas Wold\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jce.16696\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) leverages the strengths of His bundle pacing (HBP) and traditional myocardial pacing. While automatic threshold (AT) algorithms are often not suitable for HBP leads, their function in LBBAP remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from the LATITUDE remote monitoring system were evaluated retrospectively comparing LBBAP leads to a sample of right ventricular (RV) placed leads. AT accuracy was assessed comparing the nearest in-office (IO) pacing capture threshold (PCT) ± 7 days at 1 and/or 3 months at 0.4 ms pulse width. Methodology from a previous trial (CAPTIVATE, NCT02097290) used for regulatory approval of an AT algorithm for standard RV apical leads was employed, comparing percent of accurate tests, with an accurate test defined as: |AT - IO | ≤ 0.6 V (or ≤ 1 V if IO > 3.5 V). Secondary analysis assessed the percentage of devices with AT turned off during 6 mo follow-up. Statistical comparisons were made using Chi-square tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 1288 devices (798 LBBAP, 490 RV) were evaluated, limited by the in-office visit requirement for comparison. Among LBBAP patients, 677 had an INGEVITY+ lead, 121 FINELINE II. Generators were 668 PM, 128 CRT-D/P, 2 ICD; 694 in RV port, 96 LV, 8 RA. Compared to IO PCT, the AT algorithm accuracy was 96.9% in LBBAP leads and 97.6% in RV leads, (LBBAP vs. RV p = 0.47, Figure 1), both exceeding the 90% target. The median (IQR) difference between AT and IO PCTs for LBBAP leads was 0.1 V (0.0, 0.2 V); 59%, 81% and 91% of AT values were within 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 V of IO, respectively (Figure 2). The AT feature was turned off at similar rates for LBBAP and RV leads in first 6 mo (LBBA 1.8%, RV 0.9%; p = 0.18; Figure 3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AT algorithms' accuracy was high and similar for RV and LBBAP leads in this analysis. Future research is needed to determine if current algorithms are sufficient for achieving conduction system capture when the conduction system threshold is greater than the myocardial threshold.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.16696\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.16696","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

左束分支区起搏(LBBAP)利用了他束起搏(HBP)和传统心肌起搏的优势。虽然自动阈值(AT)算法通常不适合HBP导联,但它们在LBBAP中的作用仍然不确定。方法:回顾性评价来自LATITUDE远程监测系统的数据,将LBBAP导联与右心室(RV)放置的导联样本进行比较。在1个月和/或3个月0.4 ms脉宽时,比较最近的办公室(IO)起搏捕获阈值(PCT)±7天来评估AT的准确性。采用先前试验(CAPTIVATE, NCT02097290)的方法,用于标准RV根尖引线的AT算法的监管批准,比较准确测试的百分比,准确测试定义为:|AT - IO |≤0.6 V(或≤1 V,如果IO > 3.5 V)。二次分析评估了在6个月随访期间关闭AT设备的百分比。采用卡方检验进行统计学比较。结果:1288台设备(798台LBBAP, 490台RV)的数据被评估,受限于办公室就诊要求进行比较。在LBBAP患者中,677例有INGEVITY+导联,121例有FINELINE II导联。发电机668 PM, 128 CRT-D/P, 2 ICD;RV端口694,96 LV, 8 RA。与IO PCT相比,AT算法在LBBAP导联中的准确率为96.9%,在RV导联中的准确率为97.6% (LBBAP vs. RV p = 0.47,图1),均超过了90%的目标。LBBAP导联AT和IO pct的中位数(IQR)差异为0.1 V (0.0, 0.2 V);59%、81%和91%的AT值分别在IO的0.1、0.2和0.3 V范围内(图2)。前6个月LBBAP和RV导联的AT特征关闭率相似(LBBA 1.8%, RV 0.9%;p = 0.18;图3)。结论:AT算法对RV和LBBAP导联的准确率较高且相近。当传导系统阈值大于心肌阈值时,当前的算法是否足以实现传导系统捕获,需要进一步的研究来确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Automatic Threshold Function With Left Bundle Branch Area Versus Traditional Right Ventricular Lead Placement.

Introduction: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) leverages the strengths of His bundle pacing (HBP) and traditional myocardial pacing. While automatic threshold (AT) algorithms are often not suitable for HBP leads, their function in LBBAP remains uncertain.

Methods: Data from the LATITUDE remote monitoring system were evaluated retrospectively comparing LBBAP leads to a sample of right ventricular (RV) placed leads. AT accuracy was assessed comparing the nearest in-office (IO) pacing capture threshold (PCT) ± 7 days at 1 and/or 3 months at 0.4 ms pulse width. Methodology from a previous trial (CAPTIVATE, NCT02097290) used for regulatory approval of an AT algorithm for standard RV apical leads was employed, comparing percent of accurate tests, with an accurate test defined as: |AT - IO | ≤ 0.6 V (or ≤ 1 V if IO > 3.5 V). Secondary analysis assessed the percentage of devices with AT turned off during 6 mo follow-up. Statistical comparisons were made using Chi-square tests.

Results: Data from 1288 devices (798 LBBAP, 490 RV) were evaluated, limited by the in-office visit requirement for comparison. Among LBBAP patients, 677 had an INGEVITY+ lead, 121 FINELINE II. Generators were 668 PM, 128 CRT-D/P, 2 ICD; 694 in RV port, 96 LV, 8 RA. Compared to IO PCT, the AT algorithm accuracy was 96.9% in LBBAP leads and 97.6% in RV leads, (LBBAP vs. RV p = 0.47, Figure 1), both exceeding the 90% target. The median (IQR) difference between AT and IO PCTs for LBBAP leads was 0.1 V (0.0, 0.2 V); 59%, 81% and 91% of AT values were within 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 V of IO, respectively (Figure 2). The AT feature was turned off at similar rates for LBBAP and RV leads in first 6 mo (LBBA 1.8%, RV 0.9%; p = 0.18; Figure 3).

Conclusion: AT algorithms' accuracy was high and similar for RV and LBBAP leads in this analysis. Future research is needed to determine if current algorithms are sufficient for achieving conduction system capture when the conduction system threshold is greater than the myocardial threshold.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
14.80%
发文量
433
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (JCE) keeps its readership well informed of the latest developments in the study and management of arrhythmic disorders. Edited by Bradley P. Knight, M.D., and a distinguished international editorial board, JCE is the leading journal devoted to the study of the electrophysiology of the heart.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信