No abstract

Introduction: Pacing leads with extendable-retractable helix (EHL) are alternatives to fixed-helix leads (FHL) for conduction system pacing (CSP), but data on handling characteristics are limited. This study evaluated a dual-center experience of lead handling and performance during CSP.Methods and Results: Consecutive patients with His-bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) were evaluated for the primary outcome of lead failure, defined as structural damage to the lead necessitating lead replacement. Differences in pacing characteristics were compared. Among 280 patients (mean age 74 ± 11 years, 44% male, 50% LBBP), 246 (88%) received FHL and 34 (12%) received EHL. Of 299 leads used, lead failure occurred more frequently among patients with EHL than FHL (29% vs. 2%, p < .001), regardless of CSP modality.Majority of damaged leads (89%) in the form of helix deformation were successfully removed, with failure occurring in only two patients, both EHL, leading to helix fracture and retention within the septal myocardium. EHL, compared to FHL, was associated with 25-fold increased odds of lead failure (odds ratio: 25.21, 95% confidence interval: 7.35-86.51), and persisted after adjustment in turn for age, pacing modality and indication. CSP implant success rates did not differ by lead design (FHL 80% vs. EHL 71%, p = .18), with similar pacing thresholds at implant and follow-up. Conclusion:Helix deformation and fracture were more frequent with EHL in CSP despite similar implant success. These findings have significant implications for lead selection during CSP and raises concerns about the long-term extractability of EHL in CSP.

Aims This study aims to determine procedural characteristics, acute success rates, and medium-term outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing His bundle pacing (HBP); and learning curves of experienced electrophysiologists adopting HBP. Methods and results Consecutive HBP patients at three hospitals were recruited. Clinical characteristics, acute procedural details, and medium-term outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records. Two hundred and thirty-three patients [mean age 74.6 ± 10.1 years, 48% female, 68% narrow QRS, 71% normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 55.8% atrioventricular block] underwent HBP. Acute procedural success was 81.1% (mean procedural and fluoroscopic times of 105.5 ± 36.5 and 13.8 ± 9.3 min). Broad QRS was associated with lower HBP success (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.02). Fluoroscopic and procedural times decreased and plateaued after 30–40 cases per operator. Implant HBP threshold was 1.3 ± 0.7 V at 1.0 ± 0.2 ms and R wave was 5.0 ± 3.9 mV. During follow-up, loss of HBP occurred in a further 12.4% and 11.3% of patients experienced a ≥1 V increase in HBP threshold. Five (2.6%) patients required HBP revision for pacing difficulties. About 8.6% of patients had a &gt;50% decrease in R wave but lead revision for sensing issues was not necessary. On an intention to treat basis, 56.7% of patients in whom HBP was attempted had persisting HBP capture and thresholds of &lt;2 V. Conclusion Physicians adopting HBP should be cognizant of the learning curve and preferentially select non-dependent patients with normal QRS and LVEF, to minimize risk of lead revision. Further rises in HBP threshold may increase battery drain and need for reoperations, important considerations when choosing HBP for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

No abstract

No abstract