MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410696873 · doi:10.1093/europace/euaf085.023

Lateral wall repolarization in standard ECG as a criterion to democratize conduction system pacing

2025· article· en· W4410696873 on OpenAlexaff
Djalal Fakim, F.A.Y.A.L.A. VALANI, L Ayala Valani, F. Ayala‐Paredes

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepolarizationCardiologyElectrical conduction system of the heartInternal medicineMedicineElectrocardiographyElectrophysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Conduction System Pacing (CSP) is gaining acceptance when high ventricular pacing burden is expected, and as an alterative to cardiac resynchronization. Criteria to ascertain CSP proper lead placement requires an EP system, not widely available. We hypothesized that when the conduction system is reached and depolarization occurs through normal, fast conducting tissue, repolarization (ST segment and T waves normalization) should be also normal in lateral leads. Methods We extracted all CSP attempted implants form our initial experience. Various accepted criteria for CSP capture were evaluated for each patient, along with two ECG only criteria: any r’/R’ in V1 and T wave polarity in lateral leads, as visual only criteria to CSP capture Results A cohort of 368 consecutive pts was evaluated, 38% were women. Only Medtronic 3830 leads were implanted. Mean age was 77,4 (+/- 9,2 years; range 22-98 y.o.). Implant indication was: Sick sinus 26%, AV block 42%, Abnormal conduction induced cardiomyopathy 26%, AV node ablation 6%. A His was targeted in 7% of pts, and 30% had pre-implant narrow QRS. Leads were directed anterior 25%, posterior 21% and mid-septal in 54% of cases (based on inferior lead polarities). A QRS from the pacing spike of 140ms or narrower was achieved in 79% of implants, a LVAT narrower than 80ms in 73% (narrower than 90ms in 81% of pts and impossible to evaluate in 6% of pts: due to Q-S in V6), and a V6-V1 inter-peak higher than 40ms was achieved in 33% of pts (the criterion was impossible to measure in 35% of pts). An r’/R’ was visible in V1 in 57% of pts, and lateral wall normal repolarization was achieved in 37% at implant. All pts with lateral wall normal repolarization and V6-V1 inter-peak measurable, had values greater than 33ms; and no pts with V6-V1 inter-peak less than 33ms had a normal repolarization in lateral wall. Conclusion CSP implants are feasible using only ECG parameters. Lateral wall repolarization (normalization of ST segment and T waves when the lead arrives at the conduction system) is helpful to differentiate septal capture versus conduction system capture, is easy to evaluate in all patients, and provides another tool to ascertain CSP capture when r’/R’ are not seen (mostly in anterior oriented positions) or V6-V1 inter-peak is impossible to measure (lack of either positive V5-V6 or visible r’/R’ in V1). In our early experience it validates the fact that despite narrow QRS and visible r’/R’ in V1, most of our pts ended up with only with septal capture, and using lateral wall repolarization as an extra tool, would have prompted extra turns to arrive to the conduction system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueEP EuropaceSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207