Heart rhythm · 2026
Radiofrequency current-facilitated implantation of left bundle branch pacing lead for cardiac resynchronization therapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jastrzębski Marek, Shah Rajan, Bednarek Agnieszka, Cano Oscar, Sondej Tomasz, Kiełbasa Grzegorz, Moskal Paweł, Atallah Rawan, Vernooy Kevin, Rajzer Marek, Vijayaraman Pugazhendhi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Fibrosis within the interventricular septum hinders the implantation of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) lead, particularly in candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report the acute and follow-up outcomes of pacing lead implantation using radiofrequency (RF) current delivered to the lead tip for septal electrosection in challenging LBBP cases.
METHODS: Data on lead deployment success, RF power and delivery time, complications, lead stability, proarrhythmia, current of injury, and pacing parameters were collected acutely and at the final follow-up.
RESULTS: A total of 37 RF-facilitated lead implantations in 36 patients (average age 71.6 ± 8.8 years), most of whom were CRT eligible (89%), were analyzed. On average, 2.1 ± 1.7 RF applications (resulting in 2.6 ± 2.2 seconds of RF) were used per implantation with a median power of 27 W. RF delivery was used in 85.7% of cases to achieve a current of injury drop that could not be obtained with manual lead rotation alone. Lead implantation was successful in all but 2 cases. The mean follow-up duration was 236 ± 165 days. Lead performance, including pacing parameters and lead stability, was good and did not seem to be affected by RF use (follow-up threshold 0.8 ± 0.3 V; sensitivity: 12.0 ± 5.6 mV). 1 patient experienced sustained ventricular tachycardia, and in all other cases, proarrhythmia was absent or self-limited. No other complications were noted.
CONCLUSION: RF-facilitated LBBP lead implantation is a feasible technique with potential cautious use as a bailout in selected cases, especially for failed CRT delivery.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report the acute and follow-up outcomes of pacing lead implantation using radiofrequency (RF) current delivered to the lead tip for septal electrosection in challenging LBBP cases.
METHODS: Data on lead deployment success, RF power and delivery time, complications, lead stability, proarrhythmia, current of injury, and pacing parameters were collected acutely and at the final follow-up.
RESULTS: A total of 37 RF-facilitated lead implantations in 36 patients (average age 71.6 ± 8.8 years), most of whom were CRT eligible (89%), were analyzed. On average, 2.1 ± 1.7 RF applications (resulting in 2.6 ± 2.2 seconds of RF) were used per implantation with a median power of 27 W. RF delivery was used in 85.7% of cases to achieve a current of injury drop that could not be obtained with manual lead rotation alone. Lead implantation was successful in all but 2 cases. The mean follow-up duration was 236 ± 165 days. Lead performance, including pacing parameters and lead stability, was good and did not seem to be affected by RF use (follow-up threshold 0.8 ± 0.3 V; sensitivity: 12.0 ± 5.6 mV). 1 patient experienced sustained ventricular tachycardia, and in all other cases, proarrhythmia was absent or self-limited. No other complications were noted.
CONCLUSION: RF-facilitated LBBP lead implantation is a feasible technique with potential cautious use as a bailout in selected cases, especially for failed CRT delivery.