Why the study?
Conventional His bundle pacing can be technically challenging and fluoroscopy-intense, particularly in patients with His-Purkinje conduction disease.
Does EAM-guided His bundle pacing reduce fluoroscopy exposure and improve procedural outcomes compared to conventional His bundle pacing?
Does EAM-guided His bundle pacing reduce fluoroscopy exposure and improve procedural outcomes compared to conventional His bundle pacing?
Routine use of 3D electroanatomical mapping for His bundle pacing is feasible, safe, and significantly reduces radiation exposure without prolonging procedure time.
May reduce radiation in HBP procedures; leaves open whether RCTs confirm benefits before practice change.
AIMS: Conventional His bundle pacing (HBP) can be technically challenging and fluoroscopy-intense, particularly in patients with His-Purkinje conduction disease (HPCD). Three-dimensional electroanatomical mapping (EAM) facilitates non-fluoroscopic lead navigation and HB electrogram mapping. We sought to assess the procedural outcome of routine EAM-guided HBP compared with conventional HBP in a real-world population and evaluate the feasibility and safety of EAM-guided HBP in patients with HPCD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 58 consecutive patients (72 ± 13 years; 71% male) who underwent an attempt to conventional (EAM- group; n = 29) or EAM-guided (EAM+ group; n = 29) HBP between June 2019 and April 2020. The centre's learning curve was initially determined (n = 40 cases) to define the conventional control group and minimize outcome bias favouring EAM-guided HBP. His bundle pacing was successful in 26 patients (90%) in the EAM+ and 27 patients (93%) in the EAM- group (P = 0.64). The procedure time was 90 (73-135) and 110 (70-130) min, respectively (P = 0.89). The total fluoroscopy time [0.7 (0.5-1.4) vs. 3.3 (1.4-6.5) min; P < 0.001] and fluoroscopy dose [21.9 (9.1-47.7) vs. 78.6 (27.2-144.9) cGycm2; P = 0.001] were significantly lower in the EAM+ than EAM- group. There were no significant differences between groups in His capture threshold (1.2 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0 V/1.0 ms; P = 0.33) and paced QRS duration (113 ± 15 vs. 113 ± 17 ms; P = 0.89). In patients with HPCD, paced QRS duration was similar in both groups (121 ± 15 vs. 123 ± 12 ms; P = 0.77). The bundle branch-block recruitment threshold tended to be lower in the EAM+ than EAM- group (1.3 ± 0.7 vs. 1.8 ± 1.2 V/1.0 ms; P = 0.31). No immediate procedure-related complications occurred. One patient (2%) experienced lead dislodgement during 4-week follow-up. CONCLUSION: Implementation of routine EAM-guided HBP lead implantation is feasible and safe in a real-world cohort of patients with and without HPCD and results in a tremendous reduction in radiation exposure without prolonging procedure time or increasing procedure-related complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Richter et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: