Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb;33(2):308-314.
doi: 10.1111/jce.15303. Epub 2021 Dec 9.

A single-center experience with early adoption of physiologic pacing approaches

Affiliations

A single-center experience with early adoption of physiologic pacing approaches

Connor P Oates et al. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2022 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Increasing interest in physiological pacing has been countered with challenges such as accurate lead deployment and increasing pacing thresholds with His-bundle pacing (HBP). More recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative approach to physiologic pacing.

Objective: To compare procedural outcomes and pacing parameters at follow-up during initial adoption of HBP and LBBAP at a single center.

Methods: Retrospective review, from September 2016 to January 2020, identified the first 50 patients each who underwent successful HBP or LBBAP. Pacing parameters were then assessed at first follow-up after implantation and after approximately 1 year, evaluating for acceptable pacing parameters defined as sensing R-wave amplitude >5 mV, threshold <2.5 V @ 0.5 ms, and impedance between 400 and 1200 Ω.

Results: The HBP group was younger with lower ejection fraction compared to LBBAP (73.2 ± 15.3 vs. 78.2 ± 9.2 years, p = .047; 51.0 ± 15.9% vs. 57.0 ± 13.1%, p = .044). Post-procedural QRS widths were similarly narrow (119.8 ± 21.2 vs. 116.7 ± 15.2 ms; p = .443) in both groups. Significantly fewer patients with HBP met the outcome for acceptable pacing parameters at initial follow-up (56.0% vs. 96.4%, p = .001) and most recent follow-up (60.7% vs. 94.9%, p ≤ .001; at 399 ± 259 vs. 228 ± 124 days, p ≤ .001). More HBP patients required lead revision due to early battery depletion or concern for pacing failure (0% vs. 13.3%, at a mean of 664 days).

Conclusion: During initial adoption, HBP is associated with a significantly higher frequency of unacceptable pacing parameters, energy consumption, and lead revisions compared with LBBAP.

Keywords: His bundle pacing; early adoption; lead revision; left bundle branch area pacing; pacemaker; physiologic pacing; thresholds.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Shukla HH, Hellkamp AS, James EA, et al. Heart failure hospitalization is more common in pacemaker patients with sinus node dysfunction and a prolonged paced QRS duration. Heart Rhythm. 2005;2:245-251.
    1. Sharma AD, Rizo-Patron C, Hallstrom AP, et al. Percent right ventricular pacing predicts outcomes in the DAVID trial. Heart Rhythm. 2005;2:830-834.
    1. Nielsen JC, Kristensen L, Andersen HR, Mortensen PT, Pedersen OL, Pedersen AK. A randomized comparison of atrial and dual chamber pacing in 177 consecutive patients with sick sinus syndrome: echocardiographic and clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:614-623.
    1. Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, et al. Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation. 2003;107(23):2932-2937.
    1. Steinberg JS, Fischer A, Wang P, et al. The clinical implications of cumulative right ventricular pacing in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Trial II. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2005;16:359-365.

LinkOut - more resources