A case report: SPEAR-CRT: first description of use of left bundle branch area pacing tools and techniques to place an endocardial LV lead via the interventricular septum in a patient with ostial coronary sinus occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established treatment with heart failure (HF) and conduction delays. Complex anatomy, such as coronary sinus (CS) stenosis can render LV lead placement challenging or impossible. Alternate strategies such as epicardial and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) exist, though have their own disadvantages. Case summary: A 72-year-old male with a history of ischaemic cardiomyopathy, LV dysfunction, and pacemaker dependence presented to hospital in decompensated HF after two failed attempts to upgrade to a CRT system, the latest including a sub-optimal LBBAP lead. The patient was brought back to the EP lab for a third attempt to engage the CS. Despite several different techniques, these attempts failed. With the patients consent, we proceeded to an off-label bailout strategy by placing an LV endocardial lead using LBBAP tools. When combined with pacing simultaneously through the previously positioned LBBAP, lead this gave an improved QRS morphology on the surface ECG. In follow-up, the patient's functional class and left ventricular ejection fraction improved, while maintaining 98.3% biventricular pacing. Discussion: We present a complex patient who ultimately benefited from the novel use of LBBAP equipment to place an endocardial LV lead via the interventricular septum in the setting of several prior failed attempts at placing a traditional LV lead through a stenosed CS. No further options remained for this patient, with palliation as the only alternative. Endocardial LV lead placement should be studied as in future trials as an alternative to traditional transvenous and epicardial CRT systems prior to widespread adoption.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".