Key result
The simplified left bundle branch pacing implantation method using a 4-lead ECG and analyzer achieved a 97.2% success rate and 99.3% judgement concordance with the conventional EP system.
Why the study?
Left bundle branch pacing is feasible and safe for pacemaker indications, but whether it can be performed using simplified ECG monitoring and criteria rather than a conventional EP system was unknown.
Does a simplified 4-lead ECG monitoring system provide comparable feasibility and safety to a conventional EP system for guiding left bundle branch pacing in patients with bradycardia or CRT indications?
Observational (n=143)
Single-blind
No
Does a simplified 4-lead ECG monitoring system provide comparable feasibility and safety to a conventional EP system for guiding left bundle branch pacing in patients with bradycardia or CRT indications?
A simplified 4-lead ECG monitoring method for left bundle branch pacing is highly concordant with conventional EP systems, offering a feasible and safe alternative for centers lacking EP equipment.
Background Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) had been proven to be feasible and safe in patients with a pacemaker indication. In this study, we assessed the feasibility and safety of LBBP procedure using simplified ECG monitoring and LBBP criteria in comparison with that by using the conventional EP system and currently adopted LBBP criteria. Methods The single-center study included 143 consecutive patients from March 2021 to January 2022. The operator was single-blind to the electrophysiology recording system (EP system), and only observed the electrophysiological characteristics of the four-lead ECG monitor and the pacing system analyzer (PSA) by naked eye. Other researchers kept synchronized records of the EP system, and analyzed whether the data were correct and consistent after the operation. Intraoperative data were collected and the safety of 3-month follow-up after operation were evaluated. Results Of 143 patients enrolled, 139 successfully performed LBBP, with a success rate of 97.2%, and the judgement concordance with EP system was 99.3%. The total operation time was 78.9±26.5min, the total fluoroscopy time was 9.5±6.1min, the fluoroscopy time of left bundle branch (LBB) lead deployment 3.0±2.6min, which had no significant difference with previous studies. Ventricular septal perforation occurred in 2 patients during the operation. Pacing parameters were stable and heart function improved during follow-up. Conclusions The simplified LBBP implantation method without an EP system and only relying on a simplified ECG combined with an analyzer is clinically feasible and safe and can be promoted in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Su et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Pacemaker indication (bradycardia or cardiac resynchronization therapy) (n=143). Simplified 4-lead ECG monitoring and pacing system analyzer vs. Electrophysiology recording system (EP system) was evaluated on Judgement concordance with EP system. The simplified left bundle branch pacing implantation method using a 4-lead ECG and analyzer achieved a 97.2% success rate and 99.3% judgement concordance with the conventional EP system.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: