Acute performance of stylet driven leads for left bundle branch area pacing: A comparison with lumenless leads
Óscar Cano1,2,3, Javier Navarrete-Navarro1,2, Dipen Zalavadia4
1Electrophysiology Section, Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Background:
Lumenless leads (LLLs) are widely used for left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Recently, stylet-driven leads (SDLs) have also been used for LBBAP.
Objective:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute performance of SDLs during LBBAP in comparison with LLLs.
Methods:
Consecutive patients undergoing LBBAP for bradycardia or cardiac resynchronization therapy indications at 2 high-volume, early conduction system pacing adopters, tertiary centers were included from January 2019 to July 2023. Patients received either SDLs or LLLs at the discretion of the implanting physician. Acute performance and follow-up data of both lead types were evaluated.
Results:
A total of 925 LBBAP implants were included, 655 using LLLs and 270 using SDLs. Overall, LBBAP acute success was significantly higher with LLLs than SDLs (95.3% vs 85.1%, respectively; P <.001) even after the learning curve (97% vs 86%; P = .013). LLLs were implanted in more mid-basal septal positions in comparison with SDLs, which tended to be implanted in more inferior and mid-apical septal positions. Acute lead-related complications were higher with SDLs than LLLs (15.9% vs 6.1%, respectively; P <.001) with 15 cases of lead damage during implant (4.4% vs 0.5%; P <.001) but decreased with acquired experience and were comparable in the last 100 patients included in each group. Lead implant and fluoroscopy times were shorter for SDLs, with lead dislodgment occurring in 0.9% with LLLs and 1.5% with SDLs (P = .489).
Conclusion:
Acute lead performance proved to be different between LLLs and SDLs. A specific learning curve should be considered for SDLs even for implanters with extensive previous experience with LLLs.
