Key result
Continuous unipolar pacing from a lead stylet facilitated safe and successful left bundle branch area pacing in 100% of patients in the uninterrupted group, with no septal perforations.
Why the study?
During LBBAP lead implantation, monitoring unipolar pacing characteristics confirms capture and detects septal perforation, but whether continuous uninterrupted unipolar pacing from an inserted lead stylet is feasible and facilitates implantation was unknown.
Does continuous uninterrupted unipolar pacing from a lead stylet facilitate safe and successful left bundle branch area pacing lead implantation compared to conventional interrupted pacing?
Observational (n=30)
Does continuous uninterrupted unipolar pacing from a lead stylet facilitate safe and successful left bundle branch area pacing lead implantation compared to conventional interrupted pacing?
Continuous uninterrupted unipolar pacing from a lead stylet is feasible, safe, and facilitates real-time monitoring during left bundle branch area pacing lead implantation.
Supports continuous unipolar pacing for LBBAP implantation; leaves open randomized confirmation of safety and outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: During left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) lead implantation, intermittent monitoring of unipolar pacing characteristics confirms LBB capture and can detect septal perforation. We aimed to demonstrate that continuous uninterrupted unipolar pacing from an inserted lead stylet (LS) is feasible and facilitates LBBAP implantation. METHODS: Thirty patients (mean age 76 ± 14 years) were implanted with a stylet-driven pacing lead (Biotronik Solia S60). In 10 patients (comparison-group) conventional implantation with interrupted unipolar pacing was performed, with comparison of unipolar pacing characteristics between LS and connector-pin (CP)-pacing after each rotation step. In 20 patients (uninterrupted-group) performance and safety of uninterrupted implantation during continuous pacing from the LS were evaluated. RESULTS: = 0.95, p < .0001, bias 12 ± 37 Ω) with comparable sensed electrograms and paced QRS morphologies. In the uninterrupted group, continuous LS-pacing allowed beat-to-beat monitoring of impedance and QRS morphology to guide implantation. This resulted in successful LBBAP in all patients, after a mean of 1 ± 0 attempts, with mean threshold 0.81 ± 0.4 V, median sensing 6.5 mV [IQR 4.4-9.5], and mean impedance 624 ± 101 Ω. Positive LBBAP-criteria were seen in all patients with median paced QRS duration of 120 ms [IQR 112-152 ms] and median pLVAT 73 ms [IQR 68-80.5 ms]. No septal perforation occurred. CONCLUSION: Unipolar pacing from the LS allows accurate determination of pacing impedance and generates similar paced QRS morphologies and sensed electrograms to CP pacing. Continuous LS pacing allows real-time monitoring of impedance and paced QRS morphology, which facilitates safe and successful LBBAP lead implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gillis et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Indication for left bundle branch area pacing (n=30). Continuous uninterrupted unipolar pacing from an inserted lead stylet vs. Conventional implantation with interrupted unipolar pacing was evaluated on Successful LBBAP lead implantation and septal perforation. Continuous unipolar pacing from a lead stylet facilitated safe and successful left bundle branch area pacing in 100% of patients in the uninterrupted group, with no septal perforations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: