A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Adoption of left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven lead in a tertiary academic training center: Learning curve and acute procedural outcomes. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently emerged as a strategy for conduction system pacing.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the initial learning experience and acute procedural success in adopting this procedure in an academic training center.

Methods: A retrospective review of LBBAP procedures using the Biotronik Solia stylet-driven lead from June 2022 to December 2023 was performed. Procedural and fluoroscopy times with electrocardiographic and pacing parameters were evaluated to determine safety and acute procedural outcomes.

Results: A total of 69 patients (mean age 75 ± 12 years; 60.9% male) underwent LBBAP implantation over 18 months for standard pacing indications by 10 implanters (including 7 fellows-in-training) without previous experience in LBBAP technique. Mean total procedural time was 74.1 ± 23.5 minutes, and mean fluoroscopy time for LBBAP lead insertion was 9.3 ± 5.4 minutes. Mean paced QRS duration was 115.2 ± 15.5 ms, and mean left ventricular activation time was 79.4 ± 14.5 ms. An rsR' pattern was achieved in 76.8%. LBBAP was successful in 78.3% (overall 43.5% single deployment; median 2 [interquartile range 1-3]) with excellent LBBAP lead parameters: threshold 0.8 ± 0.4 V at 0.4 ms; sensing 9.4 ± 4.2 mV; impedance 627 ± 131 Ω. Acute procedural complications included damaged lead helix requiring a second lead (4.3%), pneumothorax (2.9%), and acute LBBAP lead dislodgment (1.4%). Septal perforation occurred in 10.1% of cases with no acute sequelae. When analyzed in tertiles, the number of lead deployment attempts was significantly reduced with no changes to procedural success rates with increasing experience.

Conclusion: Adoption of LBBAP with stylet-driven lead in an academic training center is feasible and safe, with satisfactory success rates and no overly steep learning curve.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11973689PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hroo.2024.12.009DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

acute procedural
16
stylet-driven lead
12
academic training
12
lbbap lead
12
lead
9
lbbap
9
left bundle
8
bundle branch
8
branch area
8
area pacing
8

Similar Publications