Why the study?
Difficulties in locating the His bundle lead to high fluoroscopic exposure during His bundle pacing, but electroanatomical mapping systems may facilitate implantation with near-zero fluoroscopy.
Does the KODEX-EPD mapping system reduce fluoroscopic exposure during His bundle pacing implantation in patients requiring pacemakers?
Does the KODEX-EPD mapping system reduce fluoroscopic exposure during His bundle pacing implantation in patients requiring pacemakers?
The use of the KODEX-EPD mapping system for His bundle pacing is feasible and significantly reduces fluoroscopy time and radiation dose without compromising procedural time.
Reduces radiation exposure in His bundle pacing; supports EAM adoption in routine device implantation.
Introduction: His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most widely used physiological pacing modality, but difficulties in locating the His bundle lead to high fluoroscopic exposure. An electroanatomical mapping (EAM) system can be an efficient tool to achieve HBP implantation with near-zero fluoroscopic visualization. Methods: In the study, 20 patients who had indications for pacemaker implantation were prospectively enrolled and underwent HBP implantation either with the conventional fluoroscopy approach (the standard group) or guided by a novel KODEX-EPD mapping system (the EAM-guided group). The success rate, procedural details, pacing parameters, and procedure-related complications were compared between the two groups. Results: In the study, 20 consecutive patients were randomized with 10 patients in each group. HBP was successfully achieved in nine patients in the standard group and nine patients in the EAM-guided group. The procedural time was similar between the EAM-guided group vs. the standard group (85.40 ± 22.34 vs. 86.50 ± 15.05 min, p = 0.90). In comparison with the standard group, the EAM-guided group had a significant shorter total fluoroscopic time (FT) (1.45 ± 0.58 vs. 12.36 ± 5.46 min, p < 0.01) and His lead fluoroscopic time (HL-FT) (0.84 ± 0.56 vs. 9.27 ± 5.44 min, p < 0.01), while lower total fluoroscopic dose (3.13 ± 1.24 vs. 25.38 ± 11.15 mGy, p < 0.01) and His lead fluoroscopic dose (1.85 ± 1.17 vs. 19.06 ± 11.03 mGy, p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in paced QRS duration and pacing parameters between the two groups. During a 3-month follow-up, one patient had a capture threshold increased >1 V/1.0 ms in the standard group, while no other complications were recorded in either group. Conclusion: The KODEX-EPD system could facilitate HBP implantation with significantly reduced FT and dose without compromising the procedural time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hua et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: