ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Performance of automatic capture confirmation algorithm in a large cohort of pacemaker patients with left bundle branch area pacing.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomatic capture confirmation algorithms regularly evaluate pacing capture threshold (PCT) and adjust energy output to deliver a tailored safety margin over the PCT. Abbott AutoCapture™ Algorithm provides beat-by-beat capture confirmation and delivers a high-output backup safety pulse in the event of non-capture. Our objective was to evaluate the longitudinal performance and stability of the Abbott AutoCapture™ algorithm in patients with LBBAP.
methodsDe-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 in-clinic manual PCT.
resultsA total of 619 patients with either single chamber (n = 89) or dual-chamber Abbott devices (n = 530) were identified. AutoCapture and manually measured PCTs in-clinic 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 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. AutoCapture was found to be effective in assessing PCT and was activated in the majority of patients (619/644, 97%) with no clinical complications related to its usage.
conclusionThe AutoCapture algorithm measured accurate PCTs compared to manual in-clinic and showed stable trend during follow-up of 2 years in patients with LBBAP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.