OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and feasibility of conduction system pacing by performing left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). BACKGROUND: There are limited data from single centers showing that LBBAP may circumvent the technical and electrophysiological challenges encountered with His bundle pacing. METHODS: Patients referred for pacemaker implantation at 2 centers between February 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020, were considered for LBBAP. LBBAP was performed by implanting a lumen-less, exposed helix lead approximately 2 cm distal to the His bundle and deep into the septum using a specialized delivery sheath. Implant success rates, complications, and electrophysiological parameters were assessed. RESULTS: LBBAP was successful in 305 of 341 patients (89%). Mean age was 72 ± 12 years; 45% were women; and 39% had QRS duration (QRSd) >130 ms, 22% right bundle branch block, 11% left bundle branch block, and 6% intraventricular conduction defect. Pacing indications were sinus node dysfunction in 28.7%, atrioventricular block in 52.5%, cardiac resynchronization therapy in 8.8%, and refractory atrial fibrillation in 10% of patients. Procedural duration was 74.7 ± 34 min and fluoroscopic time was 10.4 ± 8.1 min. The mean baseline QRSd and paced QRSd in the overall cohort was 114 ± 29.8 ms versus 112 ± 11.7 ms (p < 0.001) and in patients with infra-Hisian disease was 144.5 ± 19 ms versus 115 ± 12 ms (p < 0.001), respectively. Mean left ventricular activation time was 71.7 ± 11 ms at high output and 74.7 ± 11 ms at low output. LBB potentials were noted in 41% patients. Pacing threshold and R waves were 0.74 ± 0.3 V at 0.4 ms and 10.7 ± 4.9 mV at time of implantation and were stable at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. The only major complications were 3 LBBAP lead dislodgements, 2 within 24 h and 1 at 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: LBBA pacing is safe, feasible, and a reliable alternative to His bundle pacing for providing physiological pacing. Randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of LBBAP.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and feasibility of conduction system pacing by performing left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). BACKGROUND: There are limited data from single centers showing that LBBAP may circumvent the technical and electrophysiological challenges encountered with His bundle pacing. METHODS: Patients referred for pacemaker implantation at 2 centers between February 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020, were considered for LBBAP. LBBAP was performed by implanting a lumen-less, exposed helix lead approximately 2 cm distal to the His bundle and deep into the septum using a specialized delivery sheath. Implant success rates, complications, and electrophysiological parameters were assessed. RESULTS: LBBAP was successful in 305 of 341 patients (89%). Mean age was 72 ± 12 years; 45% were women; and 39% had QRS duration (QRSd) >130 ms, 22% right bundle branch block, 11% left bundle branch block, and 6% intraventricular conduction defect. Pacing indications were sinus node dysfunction in 28.7%, atrioventricular block in 52.5%, cardiac resynchronization therapy in 8.8%, and refractory atrial fibrillation in 10% of patients. Procedural duration was 74.7 ± 34 min and fluoroscopic time was 10.4 ± 8.1 min. The mean baseline QRSd and paced QRSd in the overall cohort was 114 ± 29.8 ms versus 112 ± 11.7 ms (p < 0.001) and in patients with infra-Hisian disease was 144.5 ± 19 ms versus 115 ± 12 ms (p < 0.001), respectively. Mean left ventricular activation time was 71.7 ± 11 ms at high output and 74.7 ± 11 ms at low output. LBB potentials were noted in 41% patients. Pacing threshold and R waves were 0.74 ± 0.3 V at 0.4 ms and 10.7 ± 4.9 mV at time of implantation and were stable at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. The only major complications were 3 LBBAP lead dislodgements, 2 within 24 h and 1 at 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: LBBA pacing is safe, feasible, and a reliable alternative to His bundle pacing for providing physiological pacing. Randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of LBBAP.
Authors: Kyeongmin Byeon; Hye Ree Kim; Seung-Jung Park; Young Jun Park; Ji-Hoon Choi; Ju Youn Kim; Kyoung-Min Park; Young Keun On; June Soo Kim Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: L I B Heckman; J G L M Luermans; M Jastrzębski; B Weijs; A M W Van Stipdonk; S Westra; D den Uijl; D Linz; M Mafi-Rad; F W Prinzen; K Vernooy Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 2.854
Authors: Baldeep S Sidhu; Justin Gould; Mark K Elliott; Vishal Mehta; Steven Niederer; Christopher A Rinaldi Journal: Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev Date: 2021-04
Authors: Jian Liang Tan; Justin Z Lee; Vittorio Terrigno; Benjamin Saracco; Shivam Saxena; Jonathan Krathen; Krystal Hunter; Yong-Mei Cha; Andrea M Russo Journal: CJC Open Date: 2021-06-16