Stylet-Driven Lead Vs. Lumenless Lead for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Ga-In Yu, Tae-Hoon Kim, Yun-Ho Cho, Jae-Seok Bae, Jong-Hwa Ahn, Jeong Yoon Jang, Choong Hwan Kwak
{"title":"Stylet-Driven Lead Vs. Lumenless Lead for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Ga-In Yu, Tae-Hoon Kim, Yun-Ho Cho, Jae-Seok Bae, Jong-Hwa Ahn, Jeong Yoon Jang, Choong Hwan Kwak","doi":"10.1111/pace.15209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) offers cardiac synchrony benefits over conventional ventricular pacing. Although many studies on LBBAP have used lumenless pacing leads (LLLs), stylet-driven pacing leads (SDLs) can also be used. In this study, we compared LLLs and SDLs for LBBAP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for full-text articles on LBBAP from their respective inception dates to April 9, 2024. The studies comparing LLLs and SDLs were extracted, and electrophysiological characteristics and procedural outcomes were analyzed. Of 2201 articles on LBBAP, 7 met the inclusion criteria of comparing LLLs and SDLs as implanted pacing leads.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall pooled analysis showed noninferiority in implant success rates for SDLs compared with LLLs for LBBAP (89% vs. 94%, odds ratio: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-1.72, p = 0.566). The paced QRS duration of LBBAP using SDLs was not significantly different from that using LLLs (standardized mean difference: -0.19 ms, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.12, p = 0.239). There were no differences in the stimulus to the left ventricular activation time and paced QRS duration between the two groups. Follow-up pacing parameters were stable in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LBBAP using SDLs is noninferior to that using LLLs in terms of implantation success. There were no differences in procedural and electrophysiological characteristics between the two groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":54653,"journal":{"name":"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.15209","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) offers cardiac synchrony benefits over conventional ventricular pacing. Although many studies on LBBAP have used lumenless pacing leads (LLLs), stylet-driven pacing leads (SDLs) can also be used. In this study, we compared LLLs and SDLs for LBBAP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for full-text articles on LBBAP from their respective inception dates to April 9, 2024. The studies comparing LLLs and SDLs were extracted, and electrophysiological characteristics and procedural outcomes were analyzed. Of 2201 articles on LBBAP, 7 met the inclusion criteria of comparing LLLs and SDLs as implanted pacing leads.

Results: The overall pooled analysis showed noninferiority in implant success rates for SDLs compared with LLLs for LBBAP (89% vs. 94%, odds ratio: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-1.72, p = 0.566). The paced QRS duration of LBBAP using SDLs was not significantly different from that using LLLs (standardized mean difference: -0.19 ms, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.12, p = 0.239). There were no differences in the stimulus to the left ventricular activation time and paced QRS duration between the two groups. Follow-up pacing parameters were stable in both groups.

Conclusion: LBBAP using SDLs is noninferior to that using LLLs in terms of implantation success. There were no differences in procedural and electrophysiological characteristics between the two groups.

风格驱动型导联Vs.无流明导联用于左束分支区域起搏:系统文献回顾和meta分析。
背景:左束分支区域起搏(LBBAP)比传统心室起搏更有利于心脏同步。虽然许多LBBAP研究使用了无腔起搏导联(LLLs),但风格驱动起搏导联(SDLs)也可以使用。在本研究中,我们通过对文献的系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较了LBBAP的LLLs和SDLs。方法:从PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库中检索LBBAP从各自成立日期到2024年4月9日的全文文章。提取比较LLLs和SDLs的研究,分析电生理特征和手术结果。在LBBAP的2201篇文章中,有7篇符合比较lll和sdl作为植入起搏导联的纳入标准。结果:总体汇总分析显示,与LBBAP的LLLs相比,SDLs的种植成功率无显着性(89% vs. 94%,优势比:0.80,95%可信区间[CI]: 0.37-1.72, p = 0.566)。使用SDLs的LBBAP节律性QRS持续时间与使用LLLs的无显著差异(标准化平均差:-0.19 ms, 95% CI: -0.50至0.12,p = 0.239)。两组间刺激对左心室激活时间和QRS节律持续时间无差异。两组随访起搏参数均稳定。结论:LBBAP使用SDLs的植入成功率不低于使用LLLs的植入成功率。两组在程序和电生理特征上无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
209
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology (PACE) is the foremost peer-reviewed journal in the field of pacing and implantable cardioversion defibrillation, publishing over 50% of all English language articles in its field, featuring original, review, and didactic papers, and case reports related to daily practice. Articles also include editorials, book reviews, Musings on humane topics relevant to medical practice, electrophysiology (EP) rounds, device rounds, and information concerning the quality of devices used in the practice of the specialty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信