Left bundle branch area pacing: How to prevent a coronary venous fistula
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Strazzanti M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10264724 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Chest pain may be rarely associated with left bundle branch block (LBBB)-mediated ventricular dys-synchrony has been reported. This article reports 2 such cases, where left bundle branch area pacing resulted in resolution of the LBBB and associated symptoms. By adjusting the atrioventricular delays, the QRS duration was narrowed further by achieving fusion with the intrinsic activation wavefront. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.).
| S-EPMC8298553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQRS transition criteria during dynamic manoeuvers are the gold-standard for non-invasive confirmation of left bundle branch (LBB) capture, but they are seen in <50% of LBB area pacing (LBBAP) procedures.ObjectiveWe hypothesized that transition from left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) to LBB pacing (LBBP), when observed during lead penetration into the deep interventricular septum (IVS) with interrupted pacemapping, can suggest LBB capture.MethodsQRS transition during lead screwing-in was defined as shortening of paced V6-R wave peak time (RWPT) by ≥10 ms from LVSP to non-selective LBBP (ns-LBBP) obtained during mid to deep septal lead progression at the same target area, between two consecutive pacing manoeuvres. ECG-based criteria were used to compared LVSP and ns-LBBP morphologies obtained by interrupted pacemapping.ResultsSixty patients with demonstrated transition from LVSP to ns-LBBP during dynamic manoeuvers were compared to 44 patients with the same transition during lead screwing-in. Average shortening in paced V6-RWPT was similar among study groups (17.3 ± 6.8 ms vs. 18.8 ± 4.9 ms for transition during dynamic manoeuvres and lead screwing-in, respectively; p = 0.719). Paced V6-RWPT and aVL-RWPT, V6-V1 interpeak interval and the recently described LBBP score, were also similar for ns-LBBP morphologies in both groups. LVSP morphologies showed longer V6-RWPT and aVL-RWPT, shorter V6-V1 interpeak interval and lower LBBP score punctuation, without differences among the two QRS transition groups. V6-RWPT < 75 ms or V6-V1 interpeak interval > 44 ms criterion was more frequently achieved in ns-LBBP morphologies obtained during lead screwing-in compared to those obtained during dynamic manoeuvres (70.5% vs. 50%, respectively p = 0.036).ConclusionsDuring LBBAP procedure, QRS transition from LVSP to ns-LBBP can be observed as the lead penetrates deep into the IVS with interrupted pacemapping. Shortening of at least 10 ms in paced V6-RWPT may serve as marker of LBB capture.
| S-EPMC10375013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be effective and safe. Limited data are available on LBBAP in the congenital heart disease (CHD) population. This study aims to describe the feasibility and safety of LBBAP in CHD patients compared with non-CHD patients.Methods and resultsThis is a single-centre, non-randomized observational study recruiting consecutive patients with bradycardia indication. Demographic data, ECGs, imaging, and procedural data including lead parameters were recorded. A total of 39 patients were included: CHD group (n = 13) and non-CHD group (n = 26). Congenital heart disease patients were younger (55 ± 14.5 years vs. 73.2 ± 13.1, P < 0.001). Acute success was achieved in all CHD patients and 96% (25/26) of non-CHD patients. No complications were encountered in either group. The procedural time for CHD patients was comparable (96.4 ± 54 vs. 82.1 ± 37.9 min, P = 0.356). Sheath reshaping was required in 7 of 13 CHD patients but only in 1 of 26 non-CHD patients, reflecting the complex and distorted anatomy of the patients in this group. Lead parameters were similar in both groups; R wave (11 ± 7 mV vs. 11.5 ± 7.5, P = 0.881) and pacing threshold (0.6 ± 0.3 V vs. 0.7 ± 0.3, P = 0.392). Baseline QRS duration was longer in the CHD group (150 ± 28.2 vs. 118.6 ± 26.6 ms, P = 0.002). Despite a numerically greater reduction in QRS and a similar left ventricular activation time (65.9 ± 6.2 vs. 67 ± 16.8 ms, P = 0.840), the QRS remained longer in the CHD group (135.5 ± 22.4 vs. 106.9 ± 24.7 ms, P = 0.005).ConclusionLeft bundle branch area pacing is feasible and safe in CHD patients as compared to that in non-CHD patients. Procedural and fluoroscopy times did not differ between both groups. Lead parameters were satisfactory and stable over a short-term follow-up.
| S-EPMC9935007 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9043084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Deep septal pacing is an emerging technique for physiologic pacing in adults. We report a case where left bundle capture was inadvertently achieved in a small child with routine lead deployment into a thin septum and discuss the potential feasibility of this technique for future study. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).
| S-EPMC8603135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel pacing modality which aims to capture the left bundle branch area and avoids the detrimental effects of right ventricular pacing. Current approaches for LBBAP have been developed using lumen-less pacing leads (LLL). Expanding the tools and leads for LBBAP might contribute to a wider adoption of this technique. Standard stylet-driven pacing leads (SDL) differ from current LLL as they are characterized by a wider lead body diameter, are stylet-supported and often have a non-isodiametric extendable helix design. Although LBBAP can be performed safely with SDL, the implant technique of LBBAP differs compared to LLL. In the current overview we describe in detail how different types of SDL can be used to target a deep septal position and provide a practical guide on how to achieve LBBAP using SDL.
| S-EPMC8899462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsPermanent transseptal left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising new pacing method for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. However, data regarding safety, feasibility and capture type are limited to relatively small, usually single centre studies. In this large multicentre international collaboration, outcomes of LBBAP were evaluated.Methods and resultsThis is a registry-based observational study that included patients in whom LBBAP device implantation was attempted at 14 European centres, for any indication. The study comprised 2533 patients (mean age 73.9 years, female 57.6%, heart failure 27.5%). LBBAP lead implantation success rate for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications was 92.4% and 82.2%, respectively. The learning curve was steepest for the initial 110 cases and plateaued after 250 cases. Independent predictors of LBBAP lead implantation failure were heart failure, broad baseline QRS and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. The predominant LBBAP capture type was left bundle fascicular capture (69.5%), followed by left ventricular septal capture (21.5%) and proximal left bundle branch capture (9%). Capture threshold (0.77 V) and sensing (10.6 mV) were stable during mean follow-up of 6.4 months. The complication rate was 11.7%. Complications specific to the ventricular transseptal route of the pacing lead occurred in 209 patients (8.3%).ConclusionsLBBAP is feasible as a primary pacing technique for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. Success rate in heart failure patients and safety need to be improved. For wider use of LBBAP, randomized trials are necessary to assess clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC9584750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsStable coronary artery disease (CAD) is a prevalent comorbidity among patients requiring pacemaker implantation. This comorbidity may have an impact on the safety and prognosis of traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a new physiological pacing modality. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and safety of LBBaP in patients with the stable CAD.MethodsThis study included 309 patients with symptomatic bradycardia who underwent LBBaP from September 2017 to October 2021. We included 104 patients with stable CAD (CAD group) and 205 patients without CAD (non-CAD group). Additionally, 153 stable CAD patients underwent RVP, and 64 stable CAD patients underwent His-bundle pacing (HBP) were also enrolled in this study. The safety and prognosis of LBBaP was assessed by comparing pacing parameters, procedure-related complications, and clinical events.ResultsDuring a follow-up period of 17.4 ± 5.3 months, the safety assessment revealed that the overall rates of procedure-related complications were similar between the stable CAD group and the non-CAD group (7.7% vs. 3.9%). Likewise, similar rates of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) (4.8% vs. 3.4%, stable CAD vs. non-CAD) and the primary composite outcome including death due to cardiovascular disease, HFH, or the necessity for upgrading to biventricular pacing (6.7% vs. 3.9%, stable CAD vs. non-CAD), were observed. In stable CAD patients, LBBaP demonstrated lower pacing thresholds and higher R wave amplitudes when compared to HBP. Additionally, LBBaP also had significantly lower occurrences of the primary composite outcome (6.7% vs. 19.6%, P = 0.003) and HFH (4.8% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.031) than RVP in stable CAD patients, particularly among patients with the higher ventricular pacing (VP) burden (>20% and >40%).ConclusionCompared with non-CAD patients, LBBaP was found to be attainable in stable CAD patients and exhibited comparable mid-term safety and prognosis. Furthermore, in the stable CAD population, LBBaP has demonstrated more stable pacing parameters than HBP, and better prognostic outcomes compared to RVP.
| S-EPMC10720039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a new physiological pacing strategy that produces comparable clinical effects to His bundle pacing (HBP).ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate clinical outcomes of LBBaP vs RVP.Methods and resultsFrom April 2018 to September 2018, we included 44 patients under continuous pacemaker implantation. Patients were randomly divided into the LBBaP group and conventional RVP group. Compared to the RVP group, the LBBaP group displayed significantly increased operative (90.10 ± 19.68 minutes vs 61.57 ± 6.62 minutes, P < .001) and X-ray exposure times (15.55 ± 5.62 minutes vs 4.67 ± 2.06 minutes, P < .001). The lead threshold of the LBBaP group was increased (0.68 ± 0.20 mV vs 0.51 ± 0.0 mV, P = .001), while the R-wave amplitude and ventricular impedance did not significantly differ between the two groups. The conventional RVP procedure significantly widened the QRS complex (93.62 ± 8.28 ms vs 135.19 ± 12.21 ms, P = .001), whereas the LBBaP had no effect on QRS complex (130.13 ± 43.30 ms vs 112.63 ± 12.14 ms, P = .904). Furthermore, the LBBaP procedure significantly narrowed the QRS complex in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) (168.43 ± 38.870 ms vs 119.86 ± 6.69 ms, P = .019).ConclusionLBBaP is a new physiological, safe and effective pacing procedure with a high overall success rate. Compared to conventional RVP, LBBaP can correct LBBB, thereby improving cardiac electrical dyssynchrony.
| S-EPMC6671779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo evaluate ventricular synchronization and function in patients with right bundle-branch block after left bundle-branch-area pacing (LBBAP) by echocardiography.MethodsForty patients who successfully received LBBAP were selected and divided into the right bundle-branch block group (RBBB group) and the non-RBBB group by pre-operation ECG. Echocardiography and follow-up were performed 1 month after operation. Interventricular synchronization was evaluated by tissue Doppler (TDI), tissue mitral annular displacement (TMAD), and interventricular mechanical delay. The tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), right ventricular fractional area change (RVFAC), tricuspid annulus sidewall systolic velocity (TV-s'), left ventricular global ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS), right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (LS-RV), standard deviation of left ventricular 18 segments peak time difference (SDt-L) and standard deviation of right ventricular free wall 3 segments peak time difference (SDt-R) were applied to evaluate intraventricular synchronization and ventricular function.ResultsThe difference of displacement peak time of the tricuspid and mitral valves, namely ΔPTTV-MV measured by TMAD, the difference of systolic time to peak of the tricuspid and mitral valves, namely ΔTsTV-MV measured by TDI, were statistically different between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the non-RBBB group, there were no statistically significant differences in the GLS, RVFAC, LS-RV, TAPSE, TV-s', SDt-L, SDt-R (P > 0.05).ConclusionEchocardiography technology including two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI), TDI, and TMAD can effectively analyze interventricular synchronization, intraventricular synchronization, and ventricular function. Although the movement of the right ventricular myocardium in the RBBB group was slightly later than that of the left ventricular myocardium after LBBAP, LBBAP could still be applied in RBBB patients with pacing indication.
| S-EPMC9394046 | biostudies-literature