Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads.
Conduction system pacing
His bundle pacing
Left bundle branch area pacing
Journal
Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing
ISSN: 1572-8595
Titre abrégé: J Interv Card Electrophysiol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9708966
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
31
08
2022
accepted:
03
11
2022
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
7
1
2023
entrez:
6
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes. We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately. The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001). In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36607529
doi: 10.1007/s10840-022-01417-4
pii: 10.1007/s10840-022-01417-4
pmc: PMC9817436
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1589-1600Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR003142
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Deshmukh P, Casavant DA, Romanyshyn M, Anderson K. Permanent, Direct His-Bundle Pacing. Circulation. 2000;101(8):869–77. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.101.8.869 .
doi: 10.1161/01.cir.101.8.869
pubmed: 10694526
Huang W, Su L, Wu S, Xu L, Xiao F, Zhou X, Ellenbogen KA. A Novel Pacing Strategy With Low and Stable Output: Pacing the Left Bundle Branch Immediately Beyond the Conduction Block. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33(12):1736.e1-1736.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2017.09.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2017.09.013
pubmed: 29173611
Abdelrahman M, Subzposh FA, Beer D, Durr B, Naperkowski A, Sun H, … Vijayaraman P. Clinical Outcomes of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2018;71(20):2319–2330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.048 .
Sharma PS, Dandamudi G, Herweg B, Wilson D, Singh R, Naperkowski A, … Vijayaraman P. Permanent His-bundle pacing as an alternative to biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A multicenter experience. Heart Rhythm, 2018;15(3):413–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.10.014 .
Sharma PS, Dandamudi G, Naperkowski A, Oren JW, Storm RH, Ellenbogen KA, Vijayaraman P. Permanent His-bundle pacing is feasible, safe, and superior to right ventricular pacing in routine clinical practice. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(2):305–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.10.021 .
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.10.021
pubmed: 25446158
Arnold AD, Shun-Shin MJ, Keene D, Howard JP, Sohaib SMA, Wright IJ, … Whinnett ZI. His Resynchronization Versus Biventricular Pacing in Patients With Heart Failure and Left Bundle Branch Block. J Am College Cardiol, 2018;72(24):3112–3122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.073 .
Upadhyay GA, Vijayaraman P, Nayak HM, Verma N, Dandamudi G, Sharma PS, … Investigators H-S. His Corrective Pacing or Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization in Heart Failure. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2019;74(1):157–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.04.026 .
Salden FCWM, Luermans JGLM, Westra SW, Weijs B, Engels EB, Heckman LIB, … Vernooy K. Short-Term Hemodynamic and Electrophysiological Effects of Cardiac Resynchronization by Left Ventricular Septal Pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2020;75(4):347–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.040 .
Huang W, Wu S, Vijayaraman P, Su L, Chen X, Cai B, … Tung R. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Using Left Bundle Branch Pacing. JACC: Clin Electrophysiol, 2020;6(7):849–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2020.04.011 .
Vijayaraman P, Ponnusamy S, Cano Ó, Sharma PS, Naperkowski A, Subsposh FA, … Jastrzebski M. Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Results From the International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group. JACC: Clin Electrophysiol, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2020.08.015 .
Barakat AF, Inashvili A, Alkukhun L, Shalaby AA, Wang NC, Bhonsale A, … Kancharla K. Use Trends and Adverse Reports of SelectSecure 3830 Lead Implantations in the United States: Implications for His Bundle Pacing. Circ: Arrhythm Electrophysiol, 2020;13(7). https://doi.org/10.1161/circep.120.008577 .
Beer D, Dandamudi G, Mandrola JM, Friedman PA, Vijayaraman P. His-bundle pacing: impact of social media. EP Europace. 2019;21(10):1445–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euz169 .
doi: 10.1093/europace/euz169
Cappato R, Calkins H, Chen S-A, Davies W, Iesaka Y, Kalman J, … Skanes A. Worldwide Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety of Catheter Ablation for Human Atrial Fibrillation. Circulation, 2005;111(9):1100–1105. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000157153.30978.67 .
Cappato R, Calkins H, Chen S-A, Davies W, Iesaka Y, Kalman J, … Biganzoli E. Updated worldwide survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety of catheter ablation for human atrial fibrillation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, 2009;3(1):32–8. https://doi.org/10.1161/circep.109.859116 .
List of Programs by Specialty. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), n.d.. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://apps.acgme-i.org/ads/Public/Reports/Report/1 .
Padala SK, Ellenbogen KA. Left bundle branch pacing is the best approach to physiological pacing. Heart Rhythm O2. 2020;1(1):59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hroo.2020.03.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.hroo.2020.03.002
pubmed: 34113859
pmcid: 8183895
Medtronic SelectSecure Lead Model 3830. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Premarket Approval (PMA), n.d.. Retrieved July 20, 2021, from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?ID=422107 .
Abbott Agilis HisPro Steerable Catheter With Electrodes. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. 510(k) Premarket Notification, n.d.. Retrieved July 20, 2021, from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=K200721 .
Ravi V, Baba ME, Sharma PS. His bundle pacing: Tips and tricks. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;44(1):26–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14108 .
doi: 10.1111/pace.14108
pubmed: 33174216