Initial experience with stylet‐driven versus lumenless lead delivery systems for left bundle branch area pacing

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative method for conduction system pacing. While initial experience with delivery systems for stylet-driven and lumenless lead implantation for LBBP has been described, data comparing outcomes of stylet-driven versus lumenless lead implantation for LBBP are limited. In this study, we compare success rates and outcomes of LBBP with stylet-driven versus lumenless lead delivery systems. METHODS: Eighty-three consecutive patients (mean age 74.1 ± 11.2 years; 56 [68%] male) undergoing attempted LBBP at a single institution were identified. Cases were grouped by lead delivery systems used: stylet-driven (n = 53) or lumenless (n = 30). Baseline characteristics and procedural findings were recorded and compared between the cohorts. Intermediate term follow-up data on ventricular lead parameters were also compared. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Successful LBBP was achieved in 77% of patients, with similar success rates between groups (76% in stylet-driven, 80% in lumenless, p = 0.79), and rates of adjudicated LBB capture and other paced QRS parameters were also similar. Compared with the lumenless group, the stylet-driven group had significantly shorter procedure times (90 ± 4 vs. 112 ± 31 min, p = 0.004) and fluoroscopy times (10 ± 5 vs. 15 ± 6 min, p = 0.003). Ventricular lead parameters at follow-up were similar, and rates of procedural complications and need for lead revision were low in both groups. CONCLUSION: Delivery systems for stylet-driven and for lumenless leads for LBBP have comparable acute success rates. Long-term follow-up of lead performance following use of the various delivery systems is warranted.