Why the study?
Automated threshold measurement algorithms were validated for conventional pacing but unsuitable for permanent His pacing, leaving it unclear whether they could be applied to left bundle branch area pacing.
Does automated threshold measurement (ATM) provide equivalent capture thresholds compared to manual assessment in patients receiving left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)?
Does automated threshold measurement (ATM) provide equivalent capture thresholds compared to manual assessment in patients receiving left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)?
Automated threshold measurement algorithms are equivalent to manual testing for determining capture thresholds in patients with left bundle branch area pacing, allowing for reliable remote monitoring.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ATM appears feasible for LBBAP threshold management; leaves open larger multicenter data before routine follow-up adoption.
BACKGROUND: Automated threshold measurements (ATM) and output adaptation improved safety and follow-up of cardiac implantable devices (CIED) in the last years. These algorithms were validated for conventional cardiac pacing; however, they were not suitable for permanent His Pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging technique to obtain physiologic cardiac stimulation; we tried to assess if ATM could be applied to this setting. METHODS: Consecutive patients receiving ATM-capable CIED and LBBAP in our hospital were enrolled in this prospective, observational trial; they were evaluated 3 months after implant, comparing pacing thresholds manually assessed and obtained via ATM. Subsequent remote follow-up was carried on when available. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were enrolled. ATM for LBBAP lead provided consistent results in all the patients and was therefore activated; mean value of manually obtained LBBAP capture threshold was 0.66 ± 0.19 V versus ATM of 0.64 ± 0.19 V. TOST analysis showed equivalence of the two measures (p = .66). At subsequent follow-up (mean follow up 7.7 ± 3.2 months), ATM was effective in assessing pacing thresholds and no clinical adverse event was observed. CONCLUSIONS: ATM algorithms proved equivalent to manual testing in determining capture threshold and were reliably employed in patients receiving LBBAP CIED.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghiglieno et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: