Key result
Stylet-driven leads achieve comparable LBBAP implant success and acute pacing thresholds to lumen-less leads.
Why the study?
Left bundle branch area pacing had exclusively been performed using lumen-less pacing leads with fixed helix design, prompting exploration of stylet-driven leads with an extendable helix design.
Does left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven leads yield comparable feasibility and pacing characteristics to lumen-less leads in patients with bradycardia or heart failure?
Population
50 patients with bradycardia or heart failure pacing indications at Ghent University Hospital
Comparison
Stylet-driven leads with extendable helix and new delivery sheath vs lumen-less leads with fixed helix
Design
Prospective cohort study
Follow-up
3 ± 2.1 months
Authors
Loading...
May expand LBBAP lead options; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Observational (n=50)
No
Does left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven leads yield comparable feasibility and pacing characteristics to lumen-less leads in patients with bradycardia or heart failure?
Absolute Event Rate: 87% vs 89%
p-value: p=0.834
LBBAP using stylet-driven pacing leads is feasible and yields comparable implant success and pacing thresholds to traditional lumen-less leads.
Pooter et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Bradycardia or heart failure pacing indications (n=50). LBBAP using stylet-driven leads (SDLs) with an extendable helix design vs. LBBAP using lumen-less pacing leads (LLLs) with fixed helix design was evaluated on LBBAP implant success (p=0.834). Left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven leads yielded comparable implant success to lumen-less leads (87% vs 89%, p=0.834), with similar acute pacing thresholds.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: