Heart rhythm · 2024
LOCAlizaTion and clinical corrElation of Left Bundle Branch Pacing lead: Insights from a computed tomographic angiography (LOCATE LBBP) study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Ponnusamy Shunmuga Sundaram, Barka Nicki, Yang Zhongping, Ganesan Vithiya, Murugan Mariappan, Moghal Habibullah, Ramalingam Vadivelu, Kumar Saravana, Ramamoorthy Ramvivek, Ramu Kishore, Bhuvaneshwari Vaishnavi Nagarajan, Selvaraj Devisree, Alagar Avanthika Swisi, Dhanapal Jananie, Selvaraj Ranjitha, Diana Mariann, Vijayaraman Pugazhendhi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) provides physiological activation with stable pacing parameters. However, there is a paucity of data on direct assessment of lead stability.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the stability of an LBBP lead using computed tomographic angiography (CTA) during medium-term follow-up and to correlate the anatomic location of the lead and electrophysiological characteristics of LBBP.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with successful LBBP using a lumenless lead were included. Patients without LBB capture, contrast allergy, and renal dysfunction were excluded. CTA was performed postimplantation and at 6 months. Primary endpoint was defined as consistent left bundle branch (LBB) capture with helix tip separated from the left ventricular (LV) blood pool by <2 mm by CTA at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were defined as loss of conduction system capture (LOCSC) or perforation with complete capture loss at 6 months.
RESULTS: Overall, 67 of 105 patients who underwent CTA after successful LBBP were included. Mean follow-up was 33.8 ± 4.4 months. Nonselective to selective capture transition was noted in 82% (n = 55). The lead remained stable at 6 months, with no difference in mean distance between LV blood pool and helix tip (-0.5 ± 1.8 mm vs -0.1 ± 2.1 mm; P = .23). Primary endpoint was achieved in 89.5% (n = 60). Consistent LBB capture (group I) at 6 months was noted in 94% (n = 63). LOCSC (group 2) was noted in 6% (n = 4) at 6 months. No perforation into the LV cavity with complete loss of capture was seen. Lead displacement by >2 mm away from the LV blood pool (sensitivity 100%; specificity 95%) and lack of nonselective to selective capture transition during implantation (odds ratio 18.0; 95% confidence interval 1.7-192.7; P = .01) were LOCSC predictors.
CONCLUSION: Deep septal deployment of the lead in the LV subendocardium for LBB capture is safe, with 94% of patients showing consistent conduction system capture during follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the stability of an LBBP lead using computed tomographic angiography (CTA) during medium-term follow-up and to correlate the anatomic location of the lead and electrophysiological characteristics of LBBP.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with successful LBBP using a lumenless lead were included. Patients without LBB capture, contrast allergy, and renal dysfunction were excluded. CTA was performed postimplantation and at 6 months. Primary endpoint was defined as consistent left bundle branch (LBB) capture with helix tip separated from the left ventricular (LV) blood pool by <2 mm by CTA at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were defined as loss of conduction system capture (LOCSC) or perforation with complete capture loss at 6 months.
RESULTS: Overall, 67 of 105 patients who underwent CTA after successful LBBP were included. Mean follow-up was 33.8 ± 4.4 months. Nonselective to selective capture transition was noted in 82% (n = 55). The lead remained stable at 6 months, with no difference in mean distance between LV blood pool and helix tip (-0.5 ± 1.8 mm vs -0.1 ± 2.1 mm; P = .23). Primary endpoint was achieved in 89.5% (n = 60). Consistent LBB capture (group I) at 6 months was noted in 94% (n = 63). LOCSC (group 2) was noted in 6% (n = 4) at 6 months. No perforation into the LV cavity with complete loss of capture was seen. Lead displacement by >2 mm away from the LV blood pool (sensitivity 100%; specificity 95%) and lack of nonselective to selective capture transition during implantation (odds ratio 18.0; 95% confidence interval 1.7-192.7; P = .01) were LOCSC predictors.
CONCLUSION: Deep septal deployment of the lead in the LV subendocardium for LBB capture is safe, with 94% of patients showing consistent conduction system capture during follow-up.