JavaScript NENÍ povolen !

* Zobrazit nápovědu

4 záznamů v Medvik Filtry

Článek

Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads

Perino, Alexander C
Autor Perino, Alexander C ORCID Center for Academic Medicine, Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 453 Quarry Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA. aperino@stanford.edu
Wang, Paul J
Autor Wang, Paul J Center for Academic Medicine, Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 453 Quarry Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA
Lloyd, Michael
Autor Lloyd, Michael Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, USA
Zanon, Francesco
Autor Zanon, Francesco Santa Maria Della Misericordia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
Fujiu, Katsuhito
Autor Fujiu, Katsuhito The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Osman, Faizel
Autor Osman, Faizel University Hospital Coventry, Conventry, UK
Briongos-Figuero, Sem
Autor Briongos-Figuero, Sem Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain
Sato, Toshiaki
Autor Sato, Toshiaki Kyorin University School of Medicine, Mitaka, Japan
Aksu, Tolga
Autor Aksu, Tolga Yeditepe University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Jastrzebski, Marek
Autor Jastrzebski, Marek School of Mdeicine, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland

Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology. 2023 ; 66 (7) : 1589-1600. [pub] 20230106

J Interv Card Electrophysiol
ISSN 1572-8595
Medvik
Zdroj

BACKGROUND: Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes. METHODS: We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately. RESULTS: The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.