Procedural outcome and follow-up of stylet-driven leads compared with lumenless leads for left bundle branch area pacing

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is most often delivered using lumenless leads (LLLs), but may also be performed using stylet-driven leads (SDLs). There are limited reports on the comparison of these tools, mainly limited to reports describing initial operator experience or without detailed procedural data. Our aim was to perform an in-depth comparison of SDLs and LLLs for LBBAP at implantation and follow-up in a larger cohort of patients with experience that extends beyond that of the initial learning curve.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 306 consecutive patients (age 77 ± 11 years, 183 males) undergoing LBBAP implantation at a single centre were prospectively included. The population was split into two groups of 153 patients based on the initial use of an SDL (from 4 manufacturers) or an LLL. After having discounted the initial learning curve of 50 patients, there was no difference in the success rate between the initial use of lead type (96.0% with SDL vs. 94.3% with LLL, P = 0.56). There were no significant differences in success between lead models. Electrocardiogram and electrical parameters were comparable between the groups. Post-operative macro-dislodgement occurred in 4.3% of patients (essentially within the first day following implantation) and presumed micro-dislodgement with loss of conduction system capture or rise in threshold (occurring mostly during the first month) was observed in 4.7% of patients, without differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Left bundle branch area pacing may be safely and effectively performed using either LLLs or SDLs, which provides implanters with alternatives for delivering this therapy.

Current of injury amplitude during left bundle branch area pacing implantation: impact of filter settings, ventricular pacing, and lead type

AIMS

Monitoring current of injury (COI) during left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implantation is useful to evaluate lead depth. Technical aspects for recording COI amplitude have not been well studied. Our aims were to evaluate the impact of high-pass filter settings on electrogram recordings during LBBAP implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with successful LBBAP implantation had unipolar recordings of COI at final lead position at different high-pass filter settings (0.01-1 Hz) from the tip electrode during sensing and pacing, and from the ring electrode during sensing. Duration of saturation-induced signal loss was also measured at each filter setting. COI amplitudes were compared between lumenless and stylet-driven leads. A total of 156 patients (96 males, aged 81.4 ± 9.6 years) were included. Higher filter settings led to significantly lower COI amplitudes. In 50 patients with COI amplitude < 10 mV, the magnitude of the drop was on average 1-1.5 mV (and up to 4 mV) between 0.05 and 0.5 Hz, meaning that cut-offs may not be used interchangeably. Saturation-induced signal loss was on average 10 s at 0.05 Hz and only 2 s with 0.5 Hz. When pacing was interrupted, the sensed COI amplitude varied (either higher or lower) by up to 4 mV, implying that it is advisable to periodically interrupt pacing to evaluate the sensed COI when reaching levels of ∼10 mV. Lead type did not impact COI amplitude.

CONCLUSION

High-pass filters have a significant impact on electrogram characteristics at LBBAP implantation, with the 0.5 Hz settings having the most favourable profile.