Key result
Standard stylet-driven LBBAP achieves ~94% success with a rapid procedural learning curve.
Why the study?
Most LBBAP experience has involved lumen-less pacing leads with a fixed helix, but situations occur where they cannot be used, leaving the learning curve with standard stylet-driven leads unclear.
Does left bundle branch area pacing using a standard stylet-driven lead have an acceptable learning curve compared to conventional right ventricular pacing?
Observational (n=265)
No
Does left bundle branch area pacing using a standard stylet-driven lead have an acceptable learning curve compared to conventional right ventricular pacing?
LBBAP using a standard stylet-driven lead is highly successful, with operators overcoming the learning curve and improving procedural times after approximately 20-25 cases.
Supports LBBAP feasibility with standard leads after short learning curve; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Introduction: His bundle pacing (HBP) was developed as a physiological conduction system pacing to complement the problem of conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) related to dyssynchrony. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), which overcomes the shortcomings of HBP, has been implemented. Most researches on initial experiences with LBBAP have reported that it was achieved through a lumen-less pacing lead (LLL) with a fixed helix design; however, there are situations in which LLL cannot be used. The purpose of present research is to evaluate the initial experience and learning curve of LBBAP using a standard stylet-driven lead with an extendable helix design. Methods: 265 patients who underwent LBBAP or conventional RVP performed by operators without previous LBBAP experience at Yonsei University Severance Hospital in Korea between December 2020 and October 2021 were enrolled. LBBAP was performed using a stylet‐driven pacing lead with an extendable helix. The learning curve was evaluated by analyzing fluoroscopy and procedure times. Results: LBBAP was successful in 65 of 69 (94.2%) patients during the observation period. In 65 patients who underwent LBBAP, mean fluoroscopy and procedural times were 17.1 ± 17.2 minutes and 64.2 ± 33.5 minutes, respectively. The learning curve for achieving LBBAP plateaued after the 24th case, with a gradually shortened in procedure time. Conclusion: During the initial experience with LBBAP, fluoroscopy and procedural times improved with increasing operator experience. For operators who were experienced in cardiac pacemaker implantation, the steepest part of the learning curve was over the first 20-25 cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Patients requiring cardiac pacing (n=265). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) using a standard stylet-driven lead vs. Conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) was evaluated on Learning curve (fluoroscopy and procedure times) and success rate. Left bundle branch area pacing using a standard stylet-driven lead achieved a 94.2% success rate, with the learning curve for procedure time plateauing after 20-25 cases.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: