98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Stylet-driven leads have been increasingly used for left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). The long-term outcomes associated with LBBAP by stylet-driven leads have not been reported in a large cohort.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and clinical outcomes of stylet-driven leads placed at LBBAP vs right ventricular pacing (RVP) locations in dual-chamber (DC) pacemaker patients using large real-world data.
Methods: Medicare Fee-for-Service claims and Abbott device registration databases were linked to identify patients who had de novo DC pacemaker implants with the Tendril STS or UltiPace leads (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2024, at LBBAP or RVP locations. The unadjusted and propensity score overlap weight-adjusted rates of complications, reinterventions, heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs), incident HFHs, and all-cause mortality at 2 years post-implantation were compared between the 2 groups.
Results: A total of 2341 patients with LBBAP and 68,241 patients with RVP were identified. There was no difference in the rates of 30-day acute complications (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; P = .95), chronic complications (HR 0.92; P = .51), or reinterventions (HR 0.76; P = .06) at 2 years between patients with LBBAP and RVP. The LBBAP group experienced significantly lower rates of HFHs (HR 0.72; P = .015), incident HFHs (HR 0.54; P = .04), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.64; P < .0001) at 2 years than did the RVP group.
Conclusion: DC pacemaker patients with LBBAP using Tendril STS or UltiPace stylet-driven leads experienced significantly lower rates of HFH and all-cause mortality, with similarly low complication rates compared with RVP over 2 years of follow-up in this large Medicare population.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.07.004 | DOI Listing |
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
August 2025
The University of Chicago Medicine, Center for Arrhythmia Care, Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Background: In recent years, there has been a surge of interest in strategies to perform conduction system pacing (CSP). Of these, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has rapidly gained popularity as the preferred approach to perform CSP due to favorable pacing thresholds and greater perceived ease of implant.
Aim: The majority of initial descriptions of LBBAP has focused on use of lumenless pacing leads.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
July 2025
Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Section of Electrophysiology, Boston Medical Center - Brighton, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Introduction: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is typically performed using the lumenless (LLL) Medtronic SelectSecure Model 3830 pacing lead. Stylet-driven leads (SDL) for LBBAP were recently introduced.
Objective: To compare the Abbott Tendril STS 2088TC SDL and CPS Locator 3D delivery system to the Medtronic LLL and delivery system acutely and chronically.
Background: Stylet-driven leads have been increasingly used for left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). The long-term outcomes associated with LBBAP by stylet-driven leads have not been reported in a large cohort.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and clinical outcomes of stylet-driven leads placed at LBBAP vs right ventricular pacing (RVP) locations in dual-chamber (DC) pacemaker patients using large real-world data.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
August 2025
Cardiology Department, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is emerging as a physiological alternative to conventional pacing, particularly in elderly patients. Stylet-driven leads (SDL) offer unique procedural advantages, but data on their safety and efficacy in octogenarians remain sparse.
Objective: This study evaluates the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of SDL for LBBAP in octogenarians.
Cureus
May 2025
Department of Cardiology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, IND.
Background The use of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) as a substitute for conduction system pacing (CSP) is becoming increasingly popular. Thus, this study was performed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of LBBAP with stylet-driven pacing leads (SDL) in a tertiary care center in Eastern India. Materials and methods This single-center, retrospective study was conducted at the Department of Cardiology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (IGIMS), Patna, Bihar, India.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF