Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2023
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) Auto Threshold algorithms Evaluation for Conduction System Pacing: The LATECS pilot Trial.
Наблюдательное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ghiglieno Chiara, Dell'Era Gabriele, Veroli Alessandro, De Vecchi Federica, Santagostino Matteo, Porcellini Stefano, Patti Giuseppe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Automated threshold measurements (ATM) and output adaptation improved safety and follow-up of cardiac implantable devices (CIED) in the last years. These algorithms were validated for conventional cardiac pacing; however, they were not suitable for permanent His Pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging technique to obtain physiologic cardiac stimulation; we tried to assess if ATM could be applied to this setting.
METHODS: Consecutive patients receiving ATM-capable CIED and LBBAP in our hospital were enrolled in this prospective, observational trial; they were evaluated 3 months after implant, comparing pacing thresholds manually assessed and obtained via ATM. Subsequent remote follow-up was carried on when available.
RESULTS: Forty-five patients were enrolled. ATM for LBBAP lead provided consistent results in all the patients and was therefore activated; mean value of manually obtained LBBAP capture threshold was 0.66 ± 0.19 V versus ATM of 0.64 ± 0.19 V. TOST analysis showed equivalence of the two measures (p = .66). At subsequent follow-up (mean follow up 7.7 ± 3.2 months), ATM was effective in assessing pacing thresholds and no clinical adverse event was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: ATM algorithms proved equivalent to manual testing in determining capture threshold and were reliably employed in patients receiving LBBAP CIED.
METHODS: Consecutive patients receiving ATM-capable CIED and LBBAP in our hospital were enrolled in this prospective, observational trial; they were evaluated 3 months after implant, comparing pacing thresholds manually assessed and obtained via ATM. Subsequent remote follow-up was carried on when available.
RESULTS: Forty-five patients were enrolled. ATM for LBBAP lead provided consistent results in all the patients and was therefore activated; mean value of manually obtained LBBAP capture threshold was 0.66 ± 0.19 V versus ATM of 0.64 ± 0.19 V. TOST analysis showed equivalence of the two measures (p = .66). At subsequent follow-up (mean follow up 7.7 ± 3.2 months), ATM was effective in assessing pacing thresholds and no clinical adverse event was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: ATM algorithms proved equivalent to manual testing in determining capture threshold and were reliably employed in patients receiving LBBAP CIED.