Procedural outcome and follow-up of stylet-driven leads compared with lumenless leads for left bundle branch area
Aarthiga Sritharan1, Nikola Kozhuharov1, Nicolas Masson1
1Cardiac Pacing Unit, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, CH-1211 Genève, Switzerland.
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.
