Cargando…
Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation
BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a promising pacing modality for preventing pacing induced cardiomyopathy in patients complicated with conduction abnormalities (CAs) after prosthetic valve (PV) implantation. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and fea...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7533988/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32609400 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.23413 |
_version_ | 1783590231791894528 |
---|---|
author | Guo, Jincun Li, Linlin Xiao, Guosheng Huang, Xinyi Li, Qiang Wang, Yan Cai, Binni |
author_facet | Guo, Jincun Li, Linlin Xiao, Guosheng Huang, Xinyi Li, Qiang Wang, Yan Cai, Binni |
author_sort | Guo, Jincun |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a promising pacing modality for preventing pacing induced cardiomyopathy in patients complicated with conduction abnormalities (CAs) after prosthetic valve (PV) implantation. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LBBP in this patient population. METHODS: LBBP was attempted in 20 patients complicated with atrioventricular block after PV implantation. Surface, intracardiac electrical measurements, and echocardiographic data were documented. Lead parameters and complications were routinely tracked at implantation and each follow‐up visit. RESULTS: LBBP was successful in 90% (18/20) participants. The paced QRS duration and the stimulus to left ventricular activation time were 106.8 ± 6.8 ms and 65.5 ± 5.4 ms, respectively. Left bundle branch (LBB) potential was recorded in 61.1% (11/18) patients who succeeded in LBBP. During the procedure, the mean unipolar myocardium capture threshold was 0.51 ± 0.15 V@0.4 ms while the unipolar bundle capture threshold was 0.84 ± 0.51 V@0.4 ms. The mean fluoroscopic exposure time and the radiation dose were 13.0 ± 9.2 min and 81.7 ± 8.3 mGy, respectively. The average follow‐up period was 10.4 ± 5.9 months (range 3‐23 months). Pacing parameters remained stable and no significant lead‐related complications occurred during the whole observation period. CONCLUSIONS: LBBP was safe and feasible in patients with PVs. Acceptable and stable pacing parameters could be expected during the procedure and the follow‐ups. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7533988 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Wiley Periodicals, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75339882020-10-07 Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation Guo, Jincun Li, Linlin Xiao, Guosheng Huang, Xinyi Li, Qiang Wang, Yan Cai, Binni Clin Cardiol Clinical Investigations BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a promising pacing modality for preventing pacing induced cardiomyopathy in patients complicated with conduction abnormalities (CAs) after prosthetic valve (PV) implantation. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LBBP in this patient population. METHODS: LBBP was attempted in 20 patients complicated with atrioventricular block after PV implantation. Surface, intracardiac electrical measurements, and echocardiographic data were documented. Lead parameters and complications were routinely tracked at implantation and each follow‐up visit. RESULTS: LBBP was successful in 90% (18/20) participants. The paced QRS duration and the stimulus to left ventricular activation time were 106.8 ± 6.8 ms and 65.5 ± 5.4 ms, respectively. Left bundle branch (LBB) potential was recorded in 61.1% (11/18) patients who succeeded in LBBP. During the procedure, the mean unipolar myocardium capture threshold was 0.51 ± 0.15 V@0.4 ms while the unipolar bundle capture threshold was 0.84 ± 0.51 V@0.4 ms. The mean fluoroscopic exposure time and the radiation dose were 13.0 ± 9.2 min and 81.7 ± 8.3 mGy, respectively. The average follow‐up period was 10.4 ± 5.9 months (range 3‐23 months). Pacing parameters remained stable and no significant lead‐related complications occurred during the whole observation period. CONCLUSIONS: LBBP was safe and feasible in patients with PVs. Acceptable and stable pacing parameters could be expected during the procedure and the follow‐ups. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2020-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7533988/ /pubmed/32609400 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.23413 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Investigations Guo, Jincun Li, Linlin Xiao, Guosheng Huang, Xinyi Li, Qiang Wang, Yan Cai, Binni Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation |
title | Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation |
title_full | Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation |
title_fullStr | Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation |
title_full_unstemmed | Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation |
title_short | Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation |
title_sort | feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation |
topic | Clinical Investigations |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7533988/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32609400 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.23413 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT guojincun feasibilityandstabilityofleftbundlebranchpacinginpatientsafterprostheticvalveimplantation AT lilinlin feasibilityandstabilityofleftbundlebranchpacinginpatientsafterprostheticvalveimplantation AT xiaoguosheng feasibilityandstabilityofleftbundlebranchpacinginpatientsafterprostheticvalveimplantation AT huangxinyi feasibilityandstabilityofleftbundlebranchpacinginpatientsafterprostheticvalveimplantation AT liqiang feasibilityandstabilityofleftbundlebranchpacinginpatientsafterprostheticvalveimplantation AT wangyan feasibilityandstabilityofleftbundlebranchpacinginpatientsafterprostheticvalveimplantation AT caibinni feasibilityandstabilityofleftbundlebranchpacinginpatientsafterprostheticvalveimplantation |