Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 17, 2026

Real-Time Cardiac Mapping with a Noninvasive Imageless Electrocardiographic Imaging System
Published on: April 11, 2025
Outcomes of Septal Versus Non-Septal Right Ventricular Pacemaker Leads as Adjudicated by CT Imaging
Emma C Osterhaus1, Deepak Kumar1, Marcio S Bittencourt2
1Section of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Background:
Right ventricular (RV) apical pacing is associated with pacing induced cardiomyopathy. RV septal pacing has been proposed as a more physiological alternative, yet prior studies have yielded conflicting results. Cardiac computed tomography (CT) provides superior anatomical adjudication of lead position. We sought to evaluate whether CT-confirmed septal lead placement is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with non-septal pacing.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 657 patients who underwent PPM implantation at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center with subsequent chest CT imaging. The lead position was adjudicated as septal or non-septal. The primary outcome was a composite of heart failure hospitalization, atrial fibrillation admission, and/or all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included longitudinal changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and 12-month admission burden.
Results:
Data from 657 patients were analyzed. Mean age was 73.9 ± 11.9 years, 50.5% were female, and mean baseline LVEF was 54.9 ± 7.1%. 150 had septal leads (22.8%), and 507 (77.2%) had non-septal leads. Over a median follow-up of 5.3 years (IQR 3.1-8.2), the composite endpoint occurred in 70.2% of patients, with incidence in the septal group (62.7%) and non-septal (72.4%, p = 0.21). In multivariable-adjusted multivariable adjusted models, septal versus non-septal pacing was not significantly associated with the composite outcome (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.80-1.25, p = 0.996). LVEF declined in the non-septal group (54.0 ± 9.2% to 50.5 ± 11.4%, p < 0.001) but remained stable in the septal group (55.0 ± 6.6% to 54.9 ± 7.0%, p = 0.43). No significant differences were observed in the 12-month admission rates by lead position.
Conclusions:
Septal pacing was associated with preservation of left ventricular function compared to non-septal pacing, although this advantage did not translate to improved clinical outcomes. Septal pacing may help to reduce pacing-induced ventricular dysfunction when conduction system pacing is not feasible.
More Related Videos
07:41Echocardiographic Evaluation of Atrial Communications before Transcatheter Closure
Published on: February 8, 2022
12:45Benefits of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in an Asynchronous Heart Failure Model Induced by Left Bundle Branch Ablation and Rapid Pacing
Published on: December 11, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Stenosis II: Clinical features and Diagnostic Tests
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System V: CT
Cardiac Catheterization II: Right Heart Catheterization