Key result
LBBAP success using stylet-driven leads is linked to a ~9% increase per 10 successive implants.
Why the study?
Multi-center studies show a learning curve for LBBAP using predominantly lumenless leads, but analogous data on stylet-driven leads was lacking.
Does site procedural volume improve outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven leads in patients with a ventricular pacing indication?
Observational (n=1,374)
Yes
Does site procedural volume improve outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven leads in patients with a ventricular pacing indication?
LBBAP using stylet-driven leads has high success rates that improve with consecutive implants, demonstrating a procedural learning curve without compromising safety.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
High success with INGEVITY+ SDL LBBAP seen across volumes; leaves open whether a learning curve exists in broader practice.
Background Left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing (LBBAP) is increasingly used for patients with a ventricular pacing indication. Multi-center studies analyzing predominantly lumenless leads have suggested a learning curve for LBBAP; analogous data on stylet-driven leads (SDLs) is lacking. Objective To assess the relationship between site volume and procedural outcomes and complications utilizing the INGEVITY+ SDL for LBBAP. Methods A secondary analysis of the INSIGHT-LBBA multi-site registry was performed, with retrospective data collected across 8 US sites performing LBBAP with INGEVITY+ SDLs between 2020-2023. Outcomes included LBBAP and LBB capture success rates, pacing parameters, fluoroscopy time, number of leads used, and lead-related complications. Outcomes were assessed using a generalized estimated equation based on consecutive implants. A sensitivity analysis was performed restricted to only single and dual-chamber LBBAP implants. Results A total of 1374 patients were enrolled in the primary INSIGHT-LBBA registry. Overall LBBAP success and LBB capture success rate was 94.5% and 78.1%, respectively. LBBAP success improved with experience (OR 1.09 [1.03 – 1.14] per every 10 successive LBBAP implants, p=0.001), with similar results in the sensitivity analysis. Fluoroscopy times and complication rates remained low (10.0 ± 9.2 min, and 2.7%, respectively). Conclusion In this secondary analysis of INSIGHT-LBBA utilizing INGEVITY+ SDLs, LBBAP and LBB capture success rates were high and improved with consecutive implants, indicative of a learning curve for implantation. Fluoroscopy times and complications rates remained low without significant change during consecutive implants. These data add to the growing literature supporting safe and effective use of SDLs for LBBAP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shadrin et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Ventricular pacing indication (n=1,374). Site procedural volume (consecutive implants) was evaluated on LBBAP success (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03-1.14, p=0.001). Left bundle branch area pacing success using INGEVITY+ stylet-driven leads improved with site experience.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: