Result of the Physiological Pacing Registry, an International Multicenter Prospective Observational Study of Conduction System Pacing

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064173%3A_____%2F23%3A43925819" target="_blank" >RIV/00064173:_____/23:43925819 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.06.006" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.06.006</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.06.006" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.06.006</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Result of the Physiological Pacing Registry, an International Multicenter Prospective Observational Study of Conduction System Pacing

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His-bundle pacing (HBP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option for patients with indication for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant success, safety, and electrical performances of HBP and LBBAP in the multinational Physiological Pacing Registry. METHODS: The international prospective observational registry included 44 sites from 16 countries globally between November 2018 and May 2021. RESULTS: Of 870 subjects enrolled, CSP lead implantation was attempted in 849 patients. Subjects with successful CSP lead implantation were followed for 6 months (5 +- 2 months). CSP lead implantation was successful in 768 patients (90.4%). Implant success was 95.2% (239/251) for LBBAP and 88.5% (529/598) for HBP (P = .002). Procedural duration and fluoroscopy duration were comparable between LBBAP and HBP (P = .537). Capture threshold at implant was 0.69 +- 0.39 V at 0.46 +- 0.15 ms in LBBAP and 1.44 +- 1.03 V at 0.71 +- 0.33 ms in HBP (P &lt;.001). Capture threshold at 6 months was 0.79 +- 0.33 V at 0.44 +- 0.13 ms in LBBAP and 1.59 +- 0.97 V at 0.67 +- 0.31 ms in HBP (P &lt;.001). Pacing threshold rise GREATER-THAN OR EQUAL TO1 V was observed at 6 months in 3 of 208 (1.4%) of LBBAP and 55 of 418 (13.2%) of HBP (P &lt;.001). Serious adverse events related to implant procedure or CSP lead occurred in 5 of 251 (2.0%) with LBBAP and 25 of 598 (4.2%) with HBP (P = .115). CONCLUSION: This large prospective multicenter study demonstrates that CSP is technically feasible in most patients with relatively higher implant success and suggests that, with current technology, LBBAP may have better pacing parameters than HBP.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Result of the Physiological Pacing Registry, an International Multicenter Prospective Observational Study of Conduction System Pacing

Popis výsledku anglicky

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His-bundle pacing (HBP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option for patients with indication for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant success, safety, and electrical performances of HBP and LBBAP in the multinational Physiological Pacing Registry. METHODS: The international prospective observational registry included 44 sites from 16 countries globally between November 2018 and May 2021. RESULTS: Of 870 subjects enrolled, CSP lead implantation was attempted in 849 patients. Subjects with successful CSP lead implantation were followed for 6 months (5 +- 2 months). CSP lead implantation was successful in 768 patients (90.4%). Implant success was 95.2% (239/251) for LBBAP and 88.5% (529/598) for HBP (P = .002). Procedural duration and fluoroscopy duration were comparable between LBBAP and HBP (P = .537). Capture threshold at implant was 0.69 +- 0.39 V at 0.46 +- 0.15 ms in LBBAP and 1.44 +- 1.03 V at 0.71 +- 0.33 ms in HBP (P &lt;.001). Capture threshold at 6 months was 0.79 +- 0.33 V at 0.44 +- 0.13 ms in LBBAP and 1.59 +- 0.97 V at 0.67 +- 0.31 ms in HBP (P &lt;.001). Pacing threshold rise GREATER-THAN OR EQUAL TO1 V was observed at 6 months in 3 of 208 (1.4%) of LBBAP and 55 of 418 (13.2%) of HBP (P &lt;.001). Serious adverse events related to implant procedure or CSP lead occurred in 5 of 251 (2.0%) with LBBAP and 25 of 598 (4.2%) with HBP (P = .115). CONCLUSION: This large prospective multicenter study demonstrates that CSP is technically feasible in most patients with relatively higher implant success and suggests that, with current technology, LBBAP may have better pacing parameters than HBP.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

Název periodika

Heart Rhythm

ISSN

1547-5271

e-ISSN

1556-3871

Svazek periodika

20

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

12

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

9

Strana od-do

1617-1625

Kód UT WoS článku

001131341200001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85164592163