Key result
His bundle pacing achieves ~18 ms shorter QRS duration than deep septal LBBAP during AV node ablation.
Why the study?
Concerns remain regarding long-term pacing parameters associated with His bundle pacing prior to atrioventricular node ablation for treatment-refractory atrial fibrillation.
Does combined His bundle pacing and deep septal left bundle branch area pacing provide feasible pacing parameters in patients with refractory atrial fibrillation undergoing AV node ablation?
Observational (n=8)
Single-blind (ECG assessors blinded)
No
Does combined His bundle pacing and deep septal left bundle branch area pacing provide feasible pacing parameters in patients with refractory atrial fibrillation undergoing AV node ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 101% vs 119%
p-value: p=0.02
Combined His bundle and deep septal left bundle branch area pacing is a feasible 'pace and ablate' strategy for refractory atrial fibrillation, with HBP providing shorter paced QRS duration but dsLBBAP offering better sensed ventricular amplitude and lead impedance.
Background To mitigate the risk of dyssynchrony‐induced cardiomyopathy, international guidelines advocate His bundle pacing (HBP) with a ventricular backup lead prior to atrioventricular node ablation in treatment‐refractory atrial fibrillation and normal left ventricular ejection fraction. As a result of concerns with long‐term pacing parameters associated with HBP, this case series reports an adopted strategy of HBP combined with deep septal left bundle branch area pacing (dsLBBAP) in this patient cohort, enabling intrapatient comparison of the two pacing methods. Methods and Results Eight patients aged 72 ± 10 years (left ventricular ejection fraction 53 ± 4%) underwent successful combined HBP and dsLBBAP implant prior to AV node ablation. Intrinsic QRS duration was 118 ± 46 ms. When compared to dsLBBAP, HBP had lower sensed ventricular amplitude (2.4 ± 1.1 vs. 15 ± 5.3 V, p = .001) and lower lead impedance (522 ± 57 vs. 814 ± 171ohms, p = .02), but shorter paced QRS duration (101 ± 20 vs. 119 ± 17 ms, p = .02). HBP pacing threshold was 1.0 ± 0.6 V at 1 ms pulse width, and dsLBBAP pacing threshold was 0.5 ± 0.2 V at 0.4 ms pulse width. Five patients underwent cardiac CT showing adequate dsLBBAP ventricular septal penetration (8.6 ± 1.3 mm depth, 2.4 ± 0.5 mm distance from left ventricular septal wall). No complications occurred during a mean follow‐up duration of 121 ± 92 days. Conclusions Combined HBP and dsLBBAP pacing is a feasible approach as a pace and ablate strategy for atrial fibrillation refractory to medical therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nam et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation refractory to medical therapy (n=8). His bundle pacing (HBP) vs. Deep septal left bundle branch area pacing (dsLBBAP) was evaluated on Paced QRS duration (p=0.02). Compared to deep septal left bundle branch area pacing, His bundle pacing resulted in a significantly shorter paced QRS duration (101 vs. 119 ms, p=0.02) in patients undergoing AV node ablation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: