Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11120%2F23%3A43924918" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11120/23:43924918 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01417-4" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01417-4</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01417-4" target="_blank" >10.1007/s10840-022-01417-4</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads

Original language description

BACKGROUND: Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes. METHODS: We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately. RESULTS: The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p &lt; 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_imp - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

CEP classification

—

OECD FORD branch

30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Project

—

Continuities

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Publication year

2023

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

ISSN

1383-875X

e-ISSN

1572-8595

Volume of the periodical

66

Issue of the periodical within the volume

7

Country of publishing house

NL - THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS

Number of pages

12

Pages from-to

1589-1600

UT code for WoS article

001163867200001

EID of the result in the Scopus database

2-s2.0-85145828205