Dataset Information

The Atrioventricular Conduction Axis and its Implications for Permanent Pacing

ABSTRACT: Extensive knowledge of the anatomy of the atrioventricular conduction axis, and its branches, is key to the success of permanent physiological pacing, either by capturing the His bundle, the left bundle branch or the adjacent septal regions. The inter-individual variability of the axis plays an important role in underscoring the technical difficulties known to exist in achieving a stable position of the stimulating leads. In this review, the key anatomical features of the location of the axis relative to the triangle of Koch, the aortic root, the inferior pyramidal space and the inferoseptal recess are summarised. In keeping with the increasing number of implants aimed at targeting the environs of the left bundle branch, an extensive review of the known variability in the pattern of ramification of the left bundle branch from the axis is included. This permits the authors to summarise in a pragmatic fashion the most relevant aspects to be taken into account when seeking to successfully deploy a permanent pacing lead.

SUBMITTER: Cabrera J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8576516 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing modality with stable pacing parameters and a narrow-paced QRS duration. We compared heart failure (HF) hospitalization events and echocardiographic measures between LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). Methods and Results: This multicenter observational study prospectively recruited consecutive AVB patients requiring ventricular pacing in five centers if they received LBBAP or RVP and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >50%. Data on electrocardiogram, pacing parameters, echocardiographic measurements, device complications, and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and during follow-up. The primary outcome was first episode hospitalization for HF or upgrade to biventricular pacing. LBBAP was successful in 235 of 246 patients (95.5%), while 120 patients received RVP. During a mean of 11.4 ± 2.7 months of follow-up, the ventricular pacing burden was comparable (83.9 ± 35.1 vs. 85.7 ± 30.0%), while the mean LVEF differed significantly (62.6 ± 4.6 vs. 57.8 ± 11.4%) between the LBBAP and RVP groups. Patients with LBBAP had significantly lower occurrences of HF hospitalization and upgrading to biventricular pacing than patients with RVP (2.6 vs. 10.8%, P <0.001), and differences in primary outcome between LBBAP and RVP were mainly observed in patients with ventricular pacing >40% or with baseline LVEF <60%. The primary outcome was independently associated with LBBAP (adjusted HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04-0.55), previous myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 6.82, 95% CI: 1.23-37.5), and baseline LVEF (adjusted HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86-0.96). Conclusion: Permanent LBBAP might reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or upgrade to biventricular pacing compared with RVP in AVB patients requiring a high burden of ventricular pacing. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03851315; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn; Unique Identifier: ChiCTR2100043296.

Dataset Information

The Atrioventricular Conduction Axis and its Implications for Permanent Pacing

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets