ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Computational Modelling of Selective Capture Mechanisms in Conduction System Pacing.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeConduction system pacing (CSP) is gaining clinical significance owing to its ability to restore a physiological activation sequence in the ventricles. Whilst His bundle pacing producing the most physiological activation is preferable, due to implant complications the selective activation of the left bundle branch (LBB) by LBB area pacing is considered an alternative, offering both a simpler implant and a physiological activation sequence. However, the physical mechanisms facilitating selective activation of the LBB remain poorly understood.
methodsWe developed a structurally and biophysically detailed computer model of the interventricular septum and LBB to quantitatively elucidate the role of lead position, orientation and polarity in achieving optimal selective left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) thresholds, using a geometrically detailed model of a clinically widely used CSP lead.
resultsA deep implant within the left ventricular subendocardium ensuring a direct contact between electrode and LBB is key for effective selective LBBP. For low strength, selective LBBP is feasible, but capturing the LBB in its entirety could only be achieved using higher strengths that led to non-selective LBBP. Switching the tip polarity to anodal was not beneficial, requiring higher strengths to activate the LBB. Lead orientation relative to the LBB bundles was found to influence the selective LBBP capture threshold and the number of synchronously activating bundles.
conclusionThe model explains the impedance trends that are clinically observed when advancing the tip through the interventricular septum into the LBB region, as well as sudden impedance drops associated with implant complications such as septal perforation or lead dislodgement. Quantitative consistency with clinically observed trends supports model credibility, and indicates that simulation may offer an effective approach for guiding the design of improved CSP leads, facilitating a selective and synchronous activation of the entire LBB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42417959What 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.