Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Pediatric Patients: Results of Initial Experience and Early Follow-Up.
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.
Karagöz Tevfik, Öztürk Musa, Ertuğrul İlker, Canpolat Uğur
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a recently emerged and widely adopted technique of cardiac physiological pacing. However, there is still limited data about LBBaP in children.
METHODS: Eighteen patients who consecutively underwent permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation via LBBaP were enrolled in this study. Periprocedural and postprocedural follow-up data were retrospectively evaluated.
RESULTS: The mean age was 12.3 ± 5.8 years (13 months-18 years). The mean body weight was 41.5 ± 21 kg (8-77 kg). PPM indications were congenital atrioventricular (AV) block in 13 (72%) and post-interventional AV block in 5 (27%) children. On 10/18, patients (55%) had previously received PPMs implanted in the right ventricular apex or epicardial region. The mean left ventricular activation time (LVAT), the V6-V1 inter-peak delay, and the paced QRS duration were 61 ± 9 ms, 31 ± 13 ms, and 94 ± 13 ms, respectively. No complications were observed during the procedure and follow-up. During the mean 13.5 ± 7.5 months of follow-up, the mean ventricular lead impedance was 578 ± 90 ohms, and the pacing threshold was between 0.25 and 0.75 mV.
CONCLUSION: The LBBaP is an effective and safe alternative for pacing in pediatric patients at short-term follow-up. The LBBaP acts as an alternative pacing site in children, offering improved electrical and mechanical synchronization for those who need a high rate of ventricular pacing and have a longer life expectancy.
METHODS: Eighteen patients who consecutively underwent permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation via LBBaP were enrolled in this study. Periprocedural and postprocedural follow-up data were retrospectively evaluated.
RESULTS: The mean age was 12.3 ± 5.8 years (13 months-18 years). The mean body weight was 41.5 ± 21 kg (8-77 kg). PPM indications were congenital atrioventricular (AV) block in 13 (72%) and post-interventional AV block in 5 (27%) children. On 10/18, patients (55%) had previously received PPMs implanted in the right ventricular apex or epicardial region. The mean left ventricular activation time (LVAT), the V6-V1 inter-peak delay, and the paced QRS duration were 61 ± 9 ms, 31 ± 13 ms, and 94 ± 13 ms, respectively. No complications were observed during the procedure and follow-up. During the mean 13.5 ± 7.5 months of follow-up, the mean ventricular lead impedance was 578 ± 90 ohms, and the pacing threshold was between 0.25 and 0.75 mV.
CONCLUSION: The LBBaP is an effective and safe alternative for pacing in pediatric patients at short-term follow-up. The LBBaP acts as an alternative pacing site in children, offering improved electrical and mechanical synchronization for those who need a high rate of ventricular pacing and have a longer life expectancy.