ClinicalDevicesLeft bundle area pacing: Guiding implant depth by ring measurements
Introduction
Left bundle area pacing (LBAP) is becoming a popular method of conduction system pacing.1 LBAP has been successful for a variety of pacing indications2,3 and more recently as an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy.4,5 The initial lead implantation recommendations have been published.6,7 However, the procedure is novel, has a minimal number of dedicated tools, and procedural “tricks” are still being refined. The standard 3830 lead (SelectSecure, Medtronic, Inc, Dublin, Ireland) initially used for LBAP remains the most widely used, although attempts with stylet-driven leads were recently reported.8 New procedural recommendations for stylet-driven leads based on this initial experience have been proposed.9 Both types of leads must be implanted fairly deep into the interventricular septum in order to reach the branching left bundle on the left side of the septum and to achieve the reported hemodynamic benefit. Current implant recommendations provide guidance on the depth of lead implantation and avoidance of perforations.7,10 These recommendations are primarily based on lead tip impedance measurements, electrocardiographic characteristics of the paced QRS complex, unipolar tip electrogram polarity, and recording of the left bundle branch potential whenever possible. Much less data have been reported on lead ring (anode) pacing thresholds and impedance measurements during LBAP. Given the known distance between lead tip and ring, these ring measurements may provide additional guidance on the depth and direction of lead implantation and the achievement of an adequate implant position. To investigate this concept, we retrospectively analyzed the procedural records at a tertiary referral center, active in LBAP, with the focus on lead tip and ring pacing characteristics.
Section snippets
Methods
This study was a retrospective analysis of 73 consecutive patients (between September 2020 and October 2021) who were successfully implanted with LBAP leads for standard bradycardia or cardiac resynchronization therapy indications. The research reported here adhered to the Helsinki Declaration guidelines. The data extraction protocol was approved by the local institutional review board. Patient demographic characteristics are listed in Table 1. The majority of patients had bradycardia
Results
Patient demographic characteristics are listed in Table 1. The majority of patients had bradycardia indications and received a pacemaker. Implant pacing data, procedural characteristics, and electrocardiographic measurements are given in Table 2.
Discussion
This retrospective study is the first to call attention to detailed ring impedance measurements during LBAP implant procedures. A fixed distance between the tip and the ring electrode (10.8 mm in the 3830 lead) may facilitate determining the depth of lead implantation. This study demonstrated that ring impedance measurements increase in stepwise fashion during a successful lead advancement process. Tip impedance measurements are less predictive of lead depth. Tip impedance monitoring is
Conclusion
Ring pacing parameters are more informative of lead implantation progress than tip measurements. Lead implant depth and lead-septal angle are associated with the dynamics of ring impedance and threshold measurements. Lead implantation guided by these observations may be achieved without contract injection for septal delineation. Unipolar ring pacing measurements should be incorporated into the lead implant procedure.
References (20)
- et al.
Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
CJC Open
(2021) - et al.
Left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group
JACC Clin Electrophysiol
(2021) - et al.
Left bundle branch pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: nonrandomized on-treatment comparison with His bundle pacing and biventricular pacing
Can J Cardiol
(2021) - et al.
A beginner's guide to permanent left bundle branch pacing
Heart Rhythm
(2019) - et al.
Fixation beats: a novel marker for reaching the left bundle branch area during deep septal lead implantation
Heart Rhythm
(2021) - et al.
Electrophysiological characteristics of septal perforation during left bundle branch pacing
Heart Rhythm
(2022) - et al.
Prospective evaluation of feasibility and electrophysiologic and echocardiographic characteristics of left bundle branch area pacing
Heart Rhythm
(2019) - et al.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy using left bundle branch pacing
JACC Clin Electrophysiol
(2020) - et al.
First report of super-response after left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy utilizing a stylet-driven lead
HeartRhythm Case Rep
(2022) - et al.
Relationship of paced left bundle branch pacing morphology with anatomic location and physiological outcomes
Heart Rhythm
(2021)
Cited by (2)
My preferred approach to left bundle branch pacing: Lumenless leads
2023, Heart Rhythm O2
Funding Sources: The authors have no funding sources to disclose.
Disclosures: Dr Orlov has received a research grant from Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.