Anodal Right Ventricular Capture During Left Ventricular Stimulation in CRT‐Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to improve symptoms of patients with moderate to severe heart failure. Optimal CRT involves biventricular or left ventricular (LV) stimulation alone, atrio-ventricular (AV) delay optimization, and possibly interventricular timing adjustment. Recently, anodal capture of the right ventricle (RV) has been described for patients with CRT-pacemakers. It is unknown whether the same phenomenon exists in CRT systems associated with defibrillators (CRT-ICD). The RV leads used in these systems are different from pacemaker leads: they have a larger diameter and shocking coils, which may affect the occurrence of anodal capture. METHODS: We looked for anodal RV capture during LV stimulation in 11 consecutive patients who received a CRT-ICD system with RV leads with a true bipolar design. Fifteen patients who had RV leads with an integrated design were used as controls. Anodal RV and LV thresholds were determined at pulse width (pw) durations of 0.2, 0.5, and 1.0 ms. RESULTS: RV anodal capture during LV pacing was found in 11/11 patients at some output with true bipolar RV leads versus 0/15 patients with RV leads with an integrated bipolar design. Anodal RV capture threshold was more affected by changes in pw duration than LV capture threshold. In CRT-ICD systems, RV leads with a true bipolar design with the proximal ring also used as the anode for LV pacing are associated with a high incidence of anodal RV capture during LV pacing. This may affect the clinical response to alternative resynchronization methods using single LV stimulation or interventricular delay programming.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".