The feasibility and safety of left bundle branch pacing vs. right ventricular pacing after mid-long-term follow-up: a single-centre experience. (28th December 2020)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- The feasibility and safety of left bundle branch pacing vs. right ventricular pacing after mid-long-term follow-up: a single-centre experience. (28th December 2020)
- Main Title:
- The feasibility and safety of left bundle branch pacing vs. right ventricular pacing after mid-long-term follow-up: a single-centre experience
- Authors:
- Chen, Xueying
Jin, Qinchun
Bai, Jin
Wang, Wei
Qin, Shengmei
Wang, Jingfeng
Liang, Yixiu
Su, Yangang
Ge, Junbo - Abstract:
- Abstract: Aims: The aim of this study is to prospectively assess the feasibility and safety of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) when compared with right ventricular pacing (RVP) during mid-long-term follow-up in a large cohort. Methods and results: Patients ( n = 554) indicated for pacemaker implantation were prospectively and consecutively enrolled and were non-randomized divided into LBBP group and RVP group. The levels of cTnT and N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide were measured and compared within 2 days post-procedure between two groups. Implant characteristics, procedure-related complications, and clinical outcomes were also compared. Pacing thresholds, sensing, and impedance were assessed during procedure and follow-up. Left bundle branch pacing was feasible with a success rate of 94.8% with high incidence of LBB potential (89.9%), selective LBBP (57.8%), and left deviation of paced QRS axis (79.7%) with mean Sti-LVAT of 65.07 ± 8.58 ms. Paced QRS duration was significantly narrower in LBBP when compared with RVP (132.02 ± 7.93 vs. 177.68 ± 15.58 ms, P < 0.0001) and the pacing parameters remained stable in two groups during 18 months follow-up. cTnT elevation was more significant in LBBP when compared with RVP within 2 days post-procedure (baseline: 0.03 ± 0.03 vs. 0.02 ± 0.03 ng/mL, P = 0.002; 1 day post-procedure: 0.13 ± 0.09 vs. 0.04 ± 0.03 ng/mL, P < 0.001; 2 days post-procedure: 0.10 ± 0.08 vs. 0.03 ± 0.08 ng/mL, P < 0.001). The complications andAbstract: Aims: The aim of this study is to prospectively assess the feasibility and safety of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) when compared with right ventricular pacing (RVP) during mid-long-term follow-up in a large cohort. Methods and results: Patients ( n = 554) indicated for pacemaker implantation were prospectively and consecutively enrolled and were non-randomized divided into LBBP group and RVP group. The levels of cTnT and N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide were measured and compared within 2 days post-procedure between two groups. Implant characteristics, procedure-related complications, and clinical outcomes were also compared. Pacing thresholds, sensing, and impedance were assessed during procedure and follow-up. Left bundle branch pacing was feasible with a success rate of 94.8% with high incidence of LBB potential (89.9%), selective LBBP (57.8%), and left deviation of paced QRS axis (79.7%) with mean Sti-LVAT of 65.07 ± 8.58 ms. Paced QRS duration was significantly narrower in LBBP when compared with RVP (132.02 ± 7.93 vs. 177.68 ± 15.58 ms, P < 0.0001) and the pacing parameters remained stable in two groups during 18 months follow-up. cTnT elevation was more significant in LBBP when compared with RVP within 2 days post-procedure (baseline: 0.03 ± 0.03 vs. 0.02 ± 0.03 ng/mL, P = 0.002; 1 day post-procedure: 0.13 ± 0.09 vs. 0.04 ± 0.03 ng/mL, P < 0.001; 2 days post-procedure: 0.10 ± 0.08 vs. 0.03 ± 0.08 ng/mL, P < 0.001). The complications and cardiac outcomes were not significantly different between two groups. Conclusion: Left bundle branch pacing was feasible in bradycardia patients associated with stable pacing parameters during 18 months follow-up. Paced QRS duration was significantly narrower than that of RVP. Though cTnT elevation was more significant in LBBP within 2 days post-procedure, the complications, and cardiac outcomes were not significantly different between two groups. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Europace. Volume 22(2020)Supplement 2
- Journal:
- Europace
- Issue:
- Volume 22(2020)Supplement 2
- Issue Display:
- Volume 22, Issue 2 (2020)
- Year:
- 2020
- Volume:
- 22
- Issue:
- 2
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2020-0022-0002-0000
- Page Start:
- ii36
- Page End:
- ii44
- Publication Date:
- 2020-12-28
- Subjects:
- Left bundle branch pacing -- Right ventricular pacing -- Feasibility -- Follow-up
Arrhythmia -- Treatment -- Periodicals
Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals
Catheter ablation -- Periodicals
Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals
Electrophysiology -- Periodicals
617.4120645 - Journal URLs:
- http://europace.oxfordjournals.org/ ↗
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/ ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1093/europace/euaa294 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1099-5129
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 3829.340450
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 15325.xml