Key result
Electrosurgical bailout achieves ~100% procedural success for difficult LBBAP lead deployment without major complications.
Why the study?
Does a standardized spark-pattern cut-mode electrosurgical bailout improve procedural success and safety in patients with failed conventional left bundle branch area pacing lead advancement?
Observational (n=15)
Does a standardized spark-pattern cut-mode electrosurgical bailout improve procedural success and safety in patients with failed conventional left bundle branch area pacing lead advancement?
A standardized spark-pattern cut-mode electrosurgical bailout workflow safely and successfully facilitates left bundle branch area pacing lead deployment when conventional mechanical advancement fails.
May facilitate bailout LBBAP after mechanical failure; leaves open prospective validation of safety.
BACKGROUND: Electrosurgical facilitation can aid difficult left bundle branch area pacing lead advancement, but standardized delivery patterns, reassessment logic, and follow-up lead performance remain insufficiently defined. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 15 consecutive patients undergoing standardized spark-pattern cut-mode electrosurgical bailout after conventional mechanical left bundle branch area pacing lead advancement failed. The generator was operated in unipolar cut-mode at 20 W; spark-pattern delivery denoted brief sliding contact to the exposed cathode segment followed by immediate mechanical readvancement and ECG/electrogram reassessment. A prestandardization sustain-mode polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation event outside the 15-patient cohort informed the safety workflow. RESULTS: Conventional advancement failed in all included patients. Across 50 target-site advancement attempts, spark-pattern cut-mode assistance was activated at 15 final target sites, requiring 1.5±0.6 cycles per patient. Procedural success of left bundle branch area pacing lead deployment was achieved in 15/15. V1 terminal rightward progression occurred in 14/15, jump in 14/15, and split/discrete components in 12/15. Spark-associated premature ventricular complexes occurred in 15/15 but were isolated and self-limited; no nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, sustained ventricular tachycardia, polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, defibrillation, or hemodynamic instability occurred during the standardized workflow. Mean follow-up was 400±170 days; no clinically documented lead malfunction, dislodgement, microdislodgement, loss requiring revision, septal perforation, ventricular septal defect, pericardial effusion, or reintervention occurred. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized spark-pattern cut-mode bailout workflow provides a reproducible framework for difficult left bundle branch area pacing lead deployment. Progression markers should be distinguished from procedural success, and follow-up surveillance remains essential. Larger studies with longer follow-up and dedicated lead-integrity testing are required before general adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luo et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Difficult left bundle branch area pacing lead advancement (n=15). Standardized spark-pattern cut-mode electrosurgical bailout was evaluated on Procedural success of left bundle branch area pacing lead deployment. Standardized spark-pattern cut-mode electrosurgical bailout resulted in a 100% procedural success rate (15/15) for difficult left bundle branch area pacing lead deployment without major complications.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: