Conduction system pacing, a European survey: insights from clinical practice
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064173%3A_____%2F23%3A43925257" target="_blank" >RIV/00064173:_____/23:43925257 - isvavai.cz</a>
Alternative codes found
RIV/00216208:11120/23:43925257
Result on the web
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad019" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad019</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad019" target="_blank" >10.1093/europace/euad019</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Conduction system pacing, a European survey: insights from clinical practice
Original language description
AIMS: The field of conduction system pacing (CSP) is evolving, and our aim was to obtain a contemporary picture of European CSP practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey was devised by a European CSP Expert Group and sent electronically to cardiologists utilizing CSP. A total of 284 physicians were invited to contribute of which 171 physicians (60.2%; 85% electrophysiologists) responded. Most (77%) had experience with both His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Pacing indications ranked highest for CSP were atrioventricular block (irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction) and when coronary sinus lead implantation failed. For patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure (HF), conventional biventricular pacing remained first-line treatment. For most indications, operators preferred LBBAP over HBP as a first-line approach. When HBP was attempted as an initial approach, reasons reported for transitioning to utilizing LBBAP were: (i) high threshold (reported as >2 V at 1 ms), (ii) failure to reverse bundle branch block, or (iii) > 30 min attempting to implant at His-bundle sites. Backup right ventricular lead use for HBP was low (median 20%) and predominated in pace-and-ablate scenarios. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram assessment was deemed highly important during follow-up. This, coupled with limitations from current capture management algorithms, limits remote monitoring for CSP patients. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a snapshot of CSP implementation in Europe. Currently, CSP is predominantly used for bradycardia indications. For HF patients with LBBB, most operators reserve CSP for biventricular implant failures. Left bundle branch area pacing ostensibly has practical advantages over HBP and is therefore preferred by many operators. Practical limitations remain, and large randomized clinical trial data are currently lacking.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju
Others
Publication year
2023
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
Europace
ISSN
1099-5129
e-ISSN
1532-2092
Volume of the periodical
25
Issue of the periodical within the volume
5
Country of publishing house
GB - UNITED KINGDOM
Number of pages
9
Pages from-to
"euad019"
UT code for WoS article
000948337200001
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85160870906