Lead performance of stylet-driven leads in left bundle branch area pacing: Results from a large single-center cohort and insights from in vitro bench testing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) requires deep septal lead deployment for left-sided conduction stimulation. Advancing leads toward deep septal positions might add mechanical stress on these leads. Concerns about lead performance and reliability remain an unanswered question.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze lead performance and integrity of stylet-driven pacing leads (SDLs) for LBBAP.

METHODS

This study assessed lead fracture rates of SDL in a large single-center cohort of adult LBBAP patients. Fluoroscopic analysis of lead bending angulations at the septal insertion point and in vitro bench testing of lead preconditioning were performed to simulate clinical use conditions. Lead performance was compared between LBBAP and conventional right ventricular apical pacing (RVp) sites.

RESULTS

The study included 325 LBBAP patients (66% male; age 71±15 years). During median follow-up of 18 months, 2 patients (0.6%) experienced conductor fracture between tip housing and ring electrode, whereas no such fractures occurred with RVp patients (n = 149; P = .22). X-ray analysis revealed that high lead bending angulations occurred in 1.3% of the patients. Accelerated bench testing of excessive preconditioned leads showcased a higher probability of early conductor fracture compared to standard preconditioned leads.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of early conductor failure in LBBAP seems higher than with conventional RVp sites. The most vulnerable lead part seems to be the interelectrode space between the tip housing and ring electrode. Excessive angulation and preconditioning might contribute to early fatigue fracture.

Caveats related to conduction system pacing utilizing a proprietary deflectable mapping catheter with a stylet-driven lead

BACKGROUND

Hitherto, lumen less leads (LLLs) were routinely utilized for conduction system pacing (CSP). We report the largest experience using stylet-driven leads (SDLs) with a deflectable mapping catheter for CSP.

METHODS

Patients were prospectively and sequentially enrolled for CSP with SDL between June, 2021 and November, 2022 to (i) a novel deflectable mapping catheter (AgilisHisProTM, Abbott) (Group A) or (ii) a fixed curve sheath (Selectra3D, Biotronik) (Group B) in a 1:1 non-randomized fashion. The primary aim was to evaluate safety, feasibility, and efficacy of the CSP using SDL and deflectable mapping catheter (Group A) while reporting procedural success and intermediate-term follow-up.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients (59.4%M, mean age 67.2+/-10.6 years) were allocated to either (i) Group A (n = 40) or (ii) Group B (n = 39). In Group A (n = 40, 50% M, mean age 67.2+/-9.5 years, follow-up 210.7 + 25.1days), His bundle pacing (HBP) was the default strategy with left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) for bailout. Procedural success with HBP was feasible in 17/40 (42.5%) patients with remaining 23/40 (57.5%) needing LBBaP bailout. After initial learning curve, a manual septal curve was introduced to successfully aid LBBaP in 6/23 (26.1%) cases. Procedural and follow-up parameters did not differ significantly in HBP vs. LBBaP. Head-to-head comparison was not performed between the groups owing to different default protocols (HBP-Group A, Discretionary-Group B).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of SDL with single-curve deflectable mapping catheter was safe, feasible and yielded moderate procedural success with HBP and frequently needed a LBBaP bailout strategy. In approximately one-fourth of the latter, an out-of-plane manual septal curve was needed to optimize LBBaP.

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.