The Acute Hemodynamic Response to LV Pacing within Individual Branches of the Coronary Sinus using a Quadripolar Lead
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether there is a large difference in acute hemodynamic response (AHR) to left ventricle (LV) pacing in different regions of the same coronary sinus (CS) vein. Using the four electrodes available on a Quartet LV lead, we evaluated the AHR to pacing within individual branches of the CS. METHODS: An acute hemodynamic study was attempted in 20 patients. In each patient, we assessed AHR in a number of CS veins and along a significant proportion of each CS branch using three different bipolar configurations. We compared the AHR achieved when pacing using each different vector and also the highest AHR achieved in any position within the same patient with the lowest achieved in that patient. RESULTS: Sixty-four different CS positions in 19 patients were successfully assessed. No significant difference in AHR was found overall between the three vectors tested. The mean percentage difference in AHR between the CS branch vectors with the lowest and highest dP/dt(max) was +6.5 ± 5.4% (P < 0.001). A much larger difference of +16.9 ± 6.1% (P < 0.001) was seen when comparing the highest and lowest AHR achieved using any vector in any position within the same patient. CONCLUSION: A small difference in AHR is seen when pacing within the same branch of the CS compared to pacing in different branches in the same patient. This suggests that although the site of LV lead placement is important, the position within a CS branch is less important than choosing the right vein.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".