Article Sidebar

PDF (Tiếng Việt)
Published: 2024-11-11
Abstract Views: 0
Views PDF (Tiếng Việt): 0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v183i10.2941
Issue
Vol. 183 No. 10 (2024)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Kiên, L. V., Nhơn, B. V., Sơn, P. N., Khánh, P. Q., Sơn, P. T., Giang, T. S., Hải, Đặng M., Việt, T. T., Linh, N. D., & Đạt, B. T. (2024). Initial outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing in patients with atrio-ventricular Block. Journal of Medical Research, 183(10), 257-269. https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v183i10.2941

Initial outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing in patients with atrio-ventricular Block

Le Vo Kien, Bui Van Nhon, Pham Nguyen Son, Pham Quoc Khanh, Pham Truong Son, Tran Song Giang, Dang Minh Hai, Tran Tuan Viet, Nguyen Duy Linh, Bui Thanh Dat

Main Article Content

Abstract

Evaluation of the initial outcomes and safety of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in patients with atrio-ventricular block. Patiens with atrio-ventricular block who have indications for cardiac pacing underwent ventricular lead implantation approaching the left bundle branch area. Endpoints were successful rate, procedural outcomes, electrocardiographic parameters, pacing lead parameters and peri-procedural complications. 60 patients with atrioventricular block underwent LBBAP (52/60 cases were implanted 2 chamber pacemakers and 8/60 cases with single ventricular chamber pacemakers). The median time for ventricular lead implantation was 16 minutes. Procedural time and fluoroscopy time for 2 chambers pacing group have the median time of 70.5 (60; 90) minutes and 10.95 (8.65; 14.25) minutes, respectively. Paced QRS was 114.05 ± 14.10ms. Pacing threshold was 0.85 ± 0.26/0.4ms. Success rate of LBBAP were 95% (57/60 cases). The other 3/60 cases were deep septal pacing. Paced QRS of 57 successful cases was 113.16 ± 13,77ms. No major complication. LBBAP has high success rate, feasibility and safety.

Article Details

Keywords

Cardiac pacing, left bundle branch area, His bundle branch, atrio-ventricular block

References

1. Dias-Frias A, Costa R, Campinas A, et al. Right Ventricular Septal Versus Apical Pacing: Long-Term Incidence of Heart Failure and Survival. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2022; 9(12): 444.
2. Barsheshet A, Moss AJ, McNitt S, et al. Long-term implications of cumulative right ventricular pacing among patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Heart Rhythm. 2011; 8(2): 212-218.
3. Sweeney 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. Circulation; 107: 2932 - 2937.
4. Sharma AD, Rizo-Patron C, Hallstrom AP, et al. Percent right ventricular pacing predicts outcomes in the DAVID trial. Heart Rhythm. 2005; 2(8): 830-834.
5. Burri H, Jastrzebski M, Cano Ó, et al. EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), and Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). Eur Eur Pacing Arrhythm Card Electrophysiol J Work Groups Card Pacing Arrhythm Card Cell Electrophysiol Eur Soc Cardiol. 2023; 25(4): 1208-1236.
6. Chung MK, Patton KK, Lau CP, et al. 2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure. Heart Rhythm. 2023; 20(9): e17-e91.
7. Huang W, Su L, Wu S, et al. A Novel Pacing Strategy With Low and Stable Output: Pacing the Left Bundle Branch Immediately Beyond the Conduction Block. Can J Cardiol. 2017; 33(12): 1736.e1-1736.e3.
8. Vijayaraman P, Subzposh FA, Naperkowski A, et al. Prospective evaluation of feasibility and electrophysiologic and echocardiographic characteristics of left bundle branch area pacing. Heart Rhythm. 2019; 16(12): 1774-1782.
9. Jastrzębski M, Kiełbasa G, Cano O, et al. Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study. Eur Heart J. 2022; 43(40): 4161-4173.
10. Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J. 2021; 42(35): 3427-3520.
11. Wang J, Liang Y, Wang W, et al. Left bundle branch area pacing is superior to right ventricular septum pacing concerning depolarization-repolarization reserve. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020; 31(1): 313-322.
12. Zhang J, Wang Z, Cheng L, et al. Immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing. Clin Cardiol. 2019; 42(8): 768-773.
13. Cai B, Huang X, Li L, et al. Evaluation of cardiac synchrony in left bundle branch pacing: Insights from echocardiographic research. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020; 31(2): 560-569.
14. Li X, Li H, Ma W, et al. Permanent left bundle branch area pacing for atrioventricular block: Feasibility, safety, and acute effect. Heart Rhythm. 2019; 16(12): 1766-1773.
15. Vijayaraman P, Bordachar Pierre. The Continued Search for Physiological Pacing. Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol 69 No 25.
16. Jastrzębski M, Kiełbasa G, Curila K, et al. Physiology-based electrocardiographic criteria for left bundle branch capture. Heart Rhythm. 2021; 18(6): 935-943.
17. Li Y, Chen K, Dai Y, et al. Left bundle branch pacing for symptomatic bradycardia: Implant success rate, safety, and pacing characteristics. Heart Rhythm. 2019; 16(12): 1758-1765.
18. Jastrzębski M, Burri H, Kiełbasa G, et al. The V6-V1 interpeak interval: a novel criterion for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture. Eur Eur Pacing Arrhythm Card Electrophysiol J Work Groups Card Pacing Arrhythm Card Cell Electrophysiol Eur Soc Cardiol. 2022; 24(1): 40-47.
19. Sharma PS, Patel NR, Ravi V, et al. Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry. Heart Rhythm. 2022; 19(1):3-11.