Cargando…

Initial experience, feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing is a novel pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to both right ventricular pacing for symptomatic bradycardia and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). A substantial amount of data is reported by relatively few, highly experienced centres....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rademakers, L. M., van den Broek, J. L. P. M., Op ’t Hof, M., Bracke, F. A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9043049/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34837151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12471-021-01648-6
_version_ 1784694799258877952
author Rademakers, L. M.
van den Broek, J. L. P. M.
Op ’t Hof, M.
Bracke, F. A.
author_facet Rademakers, L. M.
van den Broek, J. L. P. M.
Op ’t Hof, M.
Bracke, F. A.
author_sort Rademakers, L. M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing is a novel pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to both right ventricular pacing for symptomatic bradycardia and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). A substantial amount of data is reported by relatively few, highly experienced centres. This study describes the first experience of LBB pacing in a high-volume device centre. METHODS: Success rates (i.e. the ability to achieve LBB pacing), electrophysiological parameters and complications at implant and up to 6 months of follow-up were prospectively assessed in 100 consecutive patients referred for various pacing indications. RESULTS: The mean age was 71 ± 11 years and 65% were male. Primary pacing indication was atrioventricular (AV) block in 40%, CRT in 42%, and sinus node dysfunction or refractory atrial fibrillation prior to AV node ablation in 9% each. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was < 50% in 57% of patients, mean baseline QRS duration 145 ± 34 ms. Overall LBB pacing was successful in 83 of 100 (83%) patients but tended to be lower in patients with CRT pacing indication (69%, p = ns). Mean left ventricular activation time (LVAT) during LBB pacing was 81 ms and paced QRS duration was 120 ± 19 ms. LBB capture threshold and R‑wave sense at implant was 0.74 ± 0.4 mV at 0.4 ms and 11.9 ± 5.9 V and remained stable at 6‑month follow-up. No complications occurred during implant or follow-up. CONCLUSION: LBB pacing for bradycardia pacing and resynchronisation therapy can be easily adopted by experienced implanters, with favourable success rates and safety profile.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9043049
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90430492022-05-07 Initial experience, feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study Rademakers, L. M. van den Broek, J. L. P. M. Op ’t Hof, M. Bracke, F. A. Neth Heart J Original Article BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing is a novel pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to both right ventricular pacing for symptomatic bradycardia and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). A substantial amount of data is reported by relatively few, highly experienced centres. This study describes the first experience of LBB pacing in a high-volume device centre. METHODS: Success rates (i.e. the ability to achieve LBB pacing), electrophysiological parameters and complications at implant and up to 6 months of follow-up were prospectively assessed in 100 consecutive patients referred for various pacing indications. RESULTS: The mean age was 71 ± 11 years and 65% were male. Primary pacing indication was atrioventricular (AV) block in 40%, CRT in 42%, and sinus node dysfunction or refractory atrial fibrillation prior to AV node ablation in 9% each. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was < 50% in 57% of patients, mean baseline QRS duration 145 ± 34 ms. Overall LBB pacing was successful in 83 of 100 (83%) patients but tended to be lower in patients with CRT pacing indication (69%, p = ns). Mean left ventricular activation time (LVAT) during LBB pacing was 81 ms and paced QRS duration was 120 ± 19 ms. LBB capture threshold and R‑wave sense at implant was 0.74 ± 0.4 mV at 0.4 ms and 11.9 ± 5.9 V and remained stable at 6‑month follow-up. No complications occurred during implant or follow-up. CONCLUSION: LBB pacing for bradycardia pacing and resynchronisation therapy can be easily adopted by experienced implanters, with favourable success rates and safety profile. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2021-11-26 2022-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9043049/ /pubmed/34837151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12471-021-01648-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Rademakers, L. M.
van den Broek, J. L. P. M.
Op ’t Hof, M.
Bracke, F. A.
Initial experience, feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study
title Initial experience, feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study
title_full Initial experience, feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study
title_fullStr Initial experience, feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study
title_full_unstemmed Initial experience, feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study
title_short Initial experience, feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study
title_sort initial experience, feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9043049/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34837151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12471-021-01648-6
work_keys_str_mv AT rademakerslm initialexperiencefeasibilityandsafetyofpermanentleftbundlebranchpacingresultsfromaprospectivesinglecentrestudy
AT vandenbroekjlpm initialexperiencefeasibilityandsafetyofpermanentleftbundlebranchpacingresultsfromaprospectivesinglecentrestudy
AT opthofm initialexperiencefeasibilityandsafetyofpermanentleftbundlebranchpacingresultsfromaprospectivesinglecentrestudy
AT brackefa initialexperiencefeasibilityandsafetyofpermanentleftbundlebranchpacingresultsfromaprospectivesinglecentrestudy