Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025
Safety and performance of the Medtronic 3830 lead in His-bundle and Left bundle branch area pacing: A single-center experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sanchez-Nadales Alejandro, Sarkar Abdullah, Sleiman Jose, Sanchez-Nadales Andres, Alonso Mileydis, Bibawy John, Helguera Marcelo, Pinski Sergio, Baez-Escudero Jose
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His Bundle Pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBAP) is an evolving alternative to traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP), promising better physiological outcomes. This study evaluates the safety, feasibility, and performance of HBP and LBAP with Medtronic SelectSecure 3830 leads.
METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 490 patients undergoing HBP or LBAP. The study assessed implant success rates, pacing thresholds, device longevity, and complication rates over an average follow-up of 28 months for HBP and 14 months for LBAP.
RESULTS: The implantation success rate was 85% for HBP and 97.4% for LBAP. LBAP demonstrated lower and more stable pacing thresholds, with initial values of 0.8V at 0.5 ms rising slightly to 0.9V at 0.5 ms, and fewer device revisions compared to HBP, whose initial pacing threshold of 1.3V at 0.8ms increased to 1.68 V at 0.7ms. Complications were minimal and similar across both groups. The need for fewer device revisions and potential for prolonged device life highlighted LBAP as potentially more cost-effective. Cardiac function measured by LVEF remained stable across both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both HBP and LBAP are safe and feasible with comparable safety profiles. LBAP may offer advantages in terms of stability, fewer revisions, and extended device longevity. The study underscores the need for further research into optimal lead positioning and long-term outcomes of CSP, particularly for LBAP.
METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 490 patients undergoing HBP or LBAP. The study assessed implant success rates, pacing thresholds, device longevity, and complication rates over an average follow-up of 28 months for HBP and 14 months for LBAP.
RESULTS: The implantation success rate was 85% for HBP and 97.4% for LBAP. LBAP demonstrated lower and more stable pacing thresholds, with initial values of 0.8V at 0.5 ms rising slightly to 0.9V at 0.5 ms, and fewer device revisions compared to HBP, whose initial pacing threshold of 1.3V at 0.8ms increased to 1.68 V at 0.7ms. Complications were minimal and similar across both groups. The need for fewer device revisions and potential for prolonged device life highlighted LBAP as potentially more cost-effective. Cardiac function measured by LVEF remained stable across both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both HBP and LBAP are safe and feasible with comparable safety profiles. LBAP may offer advantages in terms of stability, fewer revisions, and extended device longevity. The study underscores the need for further research into optimal lead positioning and long-term outcomes of CSP, particularly for LBAP.