Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Aims To characterize the diagnosis, frequency, and procedural implications of septal venous channel perforation during left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Methods and results All consecutive patients undergoing LBBAP over an 8-month period were prospectively studied. During lead placement, obligatory septal contrast injection was performed twice, at initiation (implant entry zone) and at completion (fixation zone). An intuitive fluoroscopic schema using orthogonal views (left anterior oblique/right anterior oblique) and familiar landmarks is described. Using this, we resolved zonal distribution (I–VI) of lead position on the ventricular septum and its angulation (post-fixation angle θ). Subjects with and without septal venous channel perforation were compared. Sixty-one patients male 57. 3%, median age interquartile range (IQR) 69. 5 62. 5–74. 5 years were enrolled. Septal venous channel perforation was observed in eight (13. 1%) patients male 28. 5%, median age (IQR) 64 (50–75) years. They had higher frequency of (i) right-sided implant (25% vs. 1. 9%, P = 0. 04), (ii) fixation in zone III at the mid-superior septum (75% vs. 28. 3%, P = 0. 04), (iii) steeper angle of fixation—median θ (IQR) 19 (10–30) ° vs. 5 (4–19) °, P = 0. 01, and (iv) longer median penetrated-lead length (IQR) 13 (10–14. 8) vs. 10 (8. 5–12. 5) mm, P = 0. 03. Coronary sinus drainage of contrast was noted in five (62. 5%) patients. Abnormal impedance drops during implantation (12. 5% vs. 5. 7%, P = NS) were not significantly different. Conclusion When evaluated systematically, septal venous channel perforation may be encountered commonly after LBBAP. The fiducial reference framework described using fluoroscopic imaging identified salient associated findings. This may be addressed with lead repositioning to a more inferior location and is not associated with adverse consequence acutely or in early follow-up.
Ghosh et al. (Fri,) studied this question.