ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Computational analysis of intracardiac collision risk and optimal site for right ventricular leadless left bundle branch area pacing: A simulation study.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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
Background: Conduction system pacing with leadless left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising application of leadless pacemakers (L-PMs). However, the mechanical impact of the L-PM on intracardiac structures may worsen tricuspid regurgitation and induce ventricular arrhythmia. The optimal site of leadless conduction system pacing also remains unclear. Objective: This study aimed to quantify device- and site-specific collision risks and identify the optimal site for leadless LBBAP using computational modeling. Methods: We conducted a modeling study assessing collision risks of contemporary (Micra TPS, Aveir AR, and Aveir VR) and future L-PM devices and exploring the optimal site for leadless LBBAP using cardiac computed tomography models from 10 patients with heart failure. Virtual L-PM implantation on the right ventricular (RV) septal wall was performed, and models of the RV free wall, papillary muscles, moderator band, and tricuspid valve structures enabled assessment of device-structure interactions. Computer simulations examined collision risk across devices of varying dimensions throughout the cardiac cycle. Results: Collision risk increased with device length and volume, primarily driven by RV wall interactions. Apical pacing sites carried a 73.6%-75.2% collision risk, and overall wall collisions increased by 3%-8% per 5 mm device length. Tricuspid valve and papillary muscle collisions depended on implant region, with the highest risks of collision in basal-inferoseptal (>70%) and mid-inferoseptal regions (>40%), respectively. Leadless LBBAP via the left anterior fascicle had the lowest collision rates. Conclusion: These findings support patient-specific device selection and careful septal targeting of leadless LBBAP to minimize complications, optimize physiological activation, and guide future L-PM designs.
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.