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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guo, Jincun, Li, Linlin, Xiao, Guosheng, Huang, Xinyi, Li, Qiang, Wang, Yan, Cai, Binni
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