Dataset Information

Computerized tomography image correlation of His bundle/deep septal pacing location and outcomes: an analysis from the Canberra HIs bundle/deep septal Pacing Study (CHIPS).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Localisation of the conduction system under fluoroscopy is not easy and the ideal location of the pacing leads in physiological pacing is still being debated.

Objective

The primary aim was to assess the lead locations using cardiac CT scan. Secondary aims were clinical outcomes including success and safety of the procedure and lead performance.

Methods

Of the 100 consecutive patients who received physiological pacing, 34 patients underwent follow-up cardiac CT scan. The four different types of pacing were identified as His bundle (HBP), para-Hisian, left bundle branch (LBBP), and deep septal pacing.

Results

Most patients had successful HBP via the right atrium (RA) (87.5%) as compared to the right ventricle (RV) (12.5%). Lower thresholds were observed when leads were placed within 2 mm of the junction of the membranous and muscular ventricular septum. Unlike HBP, LBBP was possible at a wide region of the septum and selective capture of individual fascicles was feasible. LBBP showed deeper penetration of leads into the septum, as compared to deep septal pacing (70% vs. 45%). Approximately, 80% of patients did not have an intra-ventricular portion of the membranous septum.

Conclusions

The anterior part of the atrio-ventricular (AV) septum at the junction between the membranous and muscular septum via RA appeared to be the best target to successfully pace His bundle. LBBP was possible at a wide region of the septum and selective capture of individual fascicle was feasible. Adequate depth of penetration of lead was very important to capture the left bundle.

SUBMITTER: Abhilash SP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9236978 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough right ventricular pacing (RVP) is recommended by most of the guidelines for atrioventricular block, it can cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony, impair left ventricular function, and increase the risk of atrial fibrillation. Recently, the His-Purkinje system pacing, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), has emerged as a physiological pacing modality. However, few studies have compared their efficacy and safety in atrioventricular block (AVB).Methods and resultsThe PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for observational studies and randomized trials of patients with atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacing, from database inception until 10 January 2022. The primary outcomes were complications and heart failure hospitalization. The secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), pacing parameters, procedure duration, and success rate. After extracting the data at baseline and the longest follow-up duration available, a pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis were performed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, whereas mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs or 95% CrIs were calculated for continuous outcomes. Seven studies and 1,069 patients were included. Overall, 43.4% underwent LBBP, 33.5% HBP, and 23.1% RVP. Compared with RVP, LBBP and HBP were associated with a shorter paced QRS duration and a more preserved LVEF. HBP significantly increased the pacing threshold and reduced the R-wave amplitude. There was no difference in the risk of complications or the implant success rate. The pacing threshold remained stable during follow-up for the three pacing modalities. The pacing impedance was significantly reduced in HBP, while a numerical but non-significant pacing impedance decrease was observed in both LBBP and RVP. LBBP was associated with an increased R-wave amplitude during follow-up.ConclusionIn this systematic review and network meta-analysis, HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in paced QRS duration and preservation of LVEF for patients with atrioventricular block. LBBP was associated with a lower pacing threshold and a greater R-wave amplitude than HBP. However, the stability of the pacing output of LBBP may be a concern. Further investigation of the long-term efficacy in left ventricular function and the risk of heart failure hospitalization is needed.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=315046], identifier [CRD42022315046].