Fortuitous Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in a Small Child
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Vinocur J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8603135 | biostudies-literature |
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: Not available
| S-EPMC9043084 | 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: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: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:BackgroundPhysiological conduction system pacing has attracted attention to overcome the dyssynchrony problems of conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), which complements short combing of His bundle pacing (HBP), has emerged and has proven its efficiency and safety. In addition, initial experiences of LBBAP were mainly using lumen-less pacing lead, and the feasibility of stylet-driven pacing lead (SDL) was also established. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the learning curve for LBBAP using SDL.MethodsThe study enrolled 265 patients who underwent LBBAP or RVP performed by operators without previous LBBAP experience at Yonsei University Severance Hospital in Korea between December 2020 and October 2021. LBBAP was performed using SDL with an extendable helix. The learning curve was evaluated by analyzing fluoroscopy and procedure times. And, before and after reaching the learning curve, we evaluated how much the time required for the LBBAP differed from the time required for the RVP.ResultsLBBAP was successful in 50 of 50 (100.0%) patients left bundle branch pacing was successful in 49 of 50 (98.0%). In 50 patients who underwent LBBAP, mean fluoroscopy and procedural times were 15.1 ± 13.5 minutes and 59.9 ± 24.8 minutes, respectively. The plateau of fluoroscopy time reached in the 25th case and the plateau of procedure time reached in the 24th case.ConclusionDuring the initial experience with LBBAP, fluoroscopy and procedural times improved with increasing operator experience. For operators who were experienced in cardiac pacemaker implantation, the steepest part of the learning curve was over the first 24-25 cases. It is shorter than the previously reported learning curves of HBP.
| S-EPMC10212686 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8631415 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10995588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) has been accepted as a physiological pacing method that can yield narrow paced QRS waves. For patients with failed biventricular pacing (Bi-V), LBBaP is another feasible option. However, no randomised controlled study has evaluated the efficacy and safety of LBBaP in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Therefore, we aimed to conduct this type of randomised controlled trial.Methods and analysisThis study is a single-centre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. This study will be conducted at the cardiac centre of Beijing Anzhen Hospital. From January 2020 to December 2022, 180 heart failure patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤35%) and LBBB undergoing Bi-V implantation will be consecutively enrolled in this study. Participants will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio into an experimental group (LBBaP) and a control group (Bi-V). The primary outcome is LVEF. The secondary outcomes are NT-proBNP, duration of the QRS complex, end systolic volume, end diastolic volume, the 6-minute walking test and quality of life (SF-36 scale), all causes of mortality, cardiovascular death, rehospitalisation rate of heart failure, other rehospitalisation rates, major complication rates, procedure costs and hospitalised dates.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Beijing Anzhen Hospital Medical Ethics Committee (No. ks201932). The results of this study will be presented at domestic and international conferences. We hypothesise that LBBaP is non-inferior compared with Bi-V for treating patients with heart failure and LBBB. This trial will provide evidence-based recommendations for electrophysiologists.Trial registration numberChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000028726).
| S-EPMC7517551 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8297826 | biostudies-literature