Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Pacing: a new look. Don’t be deceived
  1. Chee Loong Chow1,2,
  2. Barveen Abu Baker1,
  3. Uwais Mohamed1,2
  1. 1 Department of Cardiology, Northern Hospital, Epping, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Uwais Mohamed, Department of Cardiology, Northern Hospital, Epping, VIC 3076, Australia; uwais.mohamed{at}


Clinical introduction A 78-year-old man presents following a syncopal episode in the setting of intermittent sinus bradycardia and left bundle branch block (LBBB). With symptoms likely due to documented intermittent sinus node dysfunction, and finding of a diseased left bundle, a pacemaker was inserted (online supplementary figure 1 shows the electrode position in a PA fluroscopy view). His baseline ECG is shown in figure 1A, with a QRS width of 160 ms, and his echocardiogram revealed a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%. His ECG day 1 postdevice insertion is shown in figure 1B. His device check confirmed excellent function. His QRS width on ECG postdevice insertion is now normalised to 80 ms.

Supplementary file 1

Question What type of device therapy has this patient received?

  1. Biventricular pacing.

  2. Right ventricular outflow septal pacing.

  3. His bundle pacing.

  4. Right ventricular apical pacing.


Figure 1

(A) Baseline ECG and (B) day 1 postpacemaker implantation.

  • pacemakers
  • Ecg/electrocardiogram

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors All authors have substantial contribution to the conception, writing and editing of the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.