Heterogeneity in clinical judgment for confirming septal lead position and capture type in left bundle branch area pacing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Determining lead location and confirming conduction system capture during left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) relies on criteria which are primarily obtained during implantation. However, the extent to which clinical judgment of the post-implant ECG varies among implanting cardiologists is unclear. Purpose To investigate inter- and intra-observer agreement in clinical judgment of the post-implant ECG in determining lead position and conduction system capture in patients undergoing LBBAP implantation. Methods Unipolar paced ECGs during LBBAP implantation from 50 patients with preserved ejection fraction and baseline narrow QRS were collected. Conduction system capture was attempted in all patients and assessed using QRS morphology transitions during threshold testing following the EHRA 2023 consensus statement (gold standard). Eight experienced LBBAP-implanting cardiologists from six tertiary referral centers were asked to classify 100 ECGs, consisting of 50 unique ECGs presented twice to assess intra-observer variability. The classification included capture types (non-selective, left ventricular septal, deep septal, and right ventricular capture) and septal location (proximal left bundle, anterior-, posterior-, or septal fascicular). To assess both inter- and intra-observer variability, Cohen’s kappa statistics were employed for all possible pairs to provide a single index (Light’s kappa). Results The inter-observer variability ranged from 0.255 to 0.753 (averaged Light’s kappa of 0.456 and 0.402 for the first and second ECG respectively), indicating a moderate agreement. The mean absolute inter-observer agreement for capture type was 0.689 (95% CI: 0.562 – 0.816). The intra-observer agreement for capture type was substantial, ranging from 0.398 to 0.801 (averaged Light’s kappa 0.619). There was a 72% (58-85%) concordance between clinical judgement and intra-procedural confirmation of capture type. There was moderate agreement with regards to lead location along the septum with an inter-observer agreement of 0.130 to 0.751 (averaged Light’s kappa 0.416 for the first assessment and 0.434 for the second) and an intra-observer agreement of 0.623 to 0.848 (averaged Light’s kappa 0.765) .As for capture type, the intra-observer agreement was substantial. The mean absolute inter-observer agreement for septal location was 0.568 (95% CI: 0.431 – 0.705). Conclusion The post LBBAP-implant ECG evaluation demonstrated substantial intra-observer agreement but only moderate inter-observer agreement and moderate correlation with the intra-procedural capture results in assessing capture type. As for determination of septal lead location, intra-observer and inter-observer agreement were substantial and moderate respectively. Differentiating capture types and septal lead location on ECG appears highly subjective between and within observers, highlighting the need for standardized or quantitative ECG assessment.Capture type Septal location
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".