MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Performance of an Automatic Capture Confirmation Algorithm in a Large Cohort of Pacemaker Patients with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing

2025· preprint· en· W4408248396 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew A. Bernabei, Sandeep Bansal, R. Ward Pulliam, Fady Dawoud, Wenwen Li, Leyla Sabet, Kyungmoo Ryu, Luke C. McSpadden, Jeffrey Arkles

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsAbbott (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBundleAlgorithmCohortCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineComputer scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Automatic capture confirmation (ACC) algorithms monitor the pacing capture threshold (PCT) and adjust energy output to deliver a tailored safety margin over the PCT, while providing a high-output backup safety pulse in the event of non-capture. Advantages of these algorithms include increased device longevity, enhanced patient safety, and improved remote monitoring capabilities. While such algorithms have been validated for conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) locations, there is limited information on their performance for pacing in the increasingly utilized location of the left bundle branch area (LBBA). Our objective was to evaluate the longitudinal performance and stability of the Abbott AutoCapture™ algorithm in patients with left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Methods De-identified remote device data were retrospectively analyzed from consecutive patients in our hospital who received AutoCapture enabled Abbott pacemakers with LBBAP from June 2021 to August 2023. Device stored AutoCapture PCT measurements were then evaluated incrementally over an approximate 2-year period, to evaluate longer-term trends and performance, and also compared with the original, manual PCT at the time of initial implant. Results A total of 619 patients with either single chamber (model 1272, n= 89) or dual-chamber Abbott devices (model 2272, n= 530) were identified. AutoCapture and manually measured PCTs at implant were within 0.25 V in 600/615 (97.6%) patients, with average PCTs of 0.76 V ± 0.28 and 0.80 V ± 0.26 respectively, at a pulse width of 0.5 ms. At 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24-month remote follow-up, average AutoCapture PCTs were 0.67 V ± 0.29 (n=594), 0.66 V ± 0.25 (n=560), 0.71 V ± 0.29 (n=543), 0.77 V ± 0.29 (n=447) and 0.81 V ± 0.28 (n=112), respectively. At the last remote follow-up, lead impedances were 536 ohms ±60, and sensed R-wave amplitude were 11 mV ± 3. AutoCapture was found to be effective in assessing PCT and was activated in the majority of patients (619/644, 97%) without complications related to its activation or usage during the follow-up period. Conclusion The AutoCapture algorithm measured accurate PCTs at implant and showed a stable trend during follow-up out to approximately 2 years in patients with LBBAP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→