Yiran Hu1, Ligang Ding1, Wei Hua2, Min Gu1, Minsi Cai1, Xuhua Chen1, Xiaohan Fan1, HongXia Niu1, Shu Zhang1. 1. State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Arrhythmia Center, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 2. State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Arrhythmia Center, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. drhuaweifw@sina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional fluoroscopy guidance, permanent His-bundle pacing (HBP) usually involves high fluoroscopy exposure. This study aims to explore the feasibility of Ensite NavX system and compare its pacing parameters and fluoroscopy doses (FD) with that of conventional fluoroscopy guiding HBP. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 30 patients receiving HBP from June to January 2019 were prospectively enrolled into this study (15 patients guided by conventional fluoroscopy and 15 patients by NavX system). Procedure time, FD, and pacing parameters were recorded at implant and 3-month follow-up. Fourteen patients (93.3%) underwent successful HBP using Ensite NavX system. The total FD was 1.4 ± 0.5 mGy in NavX group and 16.1 ± 2.2 mGy in conventional group (P < 0.001). The His lead FD was 0.4 ± 0.3 mGy in NavX group and 12.5 ± 2.2 mGy in conventional group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in pacing parameters at implant and follow-up between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Guided by Ensite NavX system, HBP is efficient with a significant reduction in fluoroscopy exposure.
BACKGROUND: Conventional fluoroscopy guidance, permanent His-bundle pacing (HBP) usually involves high fluoroscopy exposure. This study aims to explore the feasibility of Ensite NavX system and compare its pacing parameters and fluoroscopy doses (FD) with that of conventional fluoroscopy guiding HBP. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 30 patients receiving HBP from June to January 2019 were prospectively enrolled into this study (15 patients guided by conventional fluoroscopy and 15 patients by NavX system). Procedure time, FD, and pacing parameters were recorded at implant and 3-month follow-up. Fourteen patients (93.3%) underwent successful HBP using Ensite NavX system. The total FD was 1.4 ± 0.5 mGy in NavX group and 16.1 ± 2.2 mGy in conventional group (P < 0.001). The His lead FD was 0.4 ± 0.3 mGy in NavX group and 12.5 ± 2.2 mGy in conventional group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in pacing parameters at implant and follow-up between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Guided by Ensite NavX system, HBP is efficient with a significant reduction in fluoroscopy exposure.
Authors: Andrew E Epstein; John P DiMarco; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Roger A Freedman; Leonard S Gettes; A Marc Gillinov; Gabriel Gregoratos; Stephen C Hammill; David L Hayes; Mark A Hlatky; L Kristin Newby; Richard L Page; Mark H Schoenfeld; Michael J Silka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Michael O Sweeney; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Christopher E Buller; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; David P Faxon; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Bruce W Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel; Lynn G Tarkington; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Vaibhav R Vaidya; Christopher V Desimone; Malini Madhavan; Amit Noheria; Mohammed Shahid; Jacob Walters; Dorothy J Ladewig; Susan B Mikell; Susan B Johnson; Scott H Suddendorf; Samuel J Asirvatham Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2014-06-03
Authors: Michael V Orlov; Ioannis Koulouridis; A J Monin; David Casavant; Mikhail Maslov; Aharon Erez; Amy Hicks; Joe Aoun; John V Wylie Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2019-02
Authors: F G Cosío; R H Anderson; K H Kuck; A Becker; D G Benditt; S Bharati; M Borggrefe; R W Campbell; F Gaita; G M Guiraudon; M Haïssaguerre; G Klein; J Langberg; F Marchlinski; J J Rufilanchas; S Saksena; G Thiene; H J Wellens Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 1999-08
Authors: Donald L Miller; Stephen Balter; Beth A Schueler; Louis K Wagner; Keith J Strauss; Eliseo Vañó Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Parikshit S Sharma; Henry D Huang; Richard G Trohman; Angela Naperkowski; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2019-02
Authors: J Mauricio Sánchez; Margaret A Yanics; Patricia Wilson; Amit Doshi; Thomas Kurian; Stephen Pieper Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 1.900