Safety and performance of the Medtronic 3830 lead in His-bundle and Left bundle branch area pacing: A single-center experience.

IF 2.6
Alejandro Sanchez-Nadales, Abdullah Sarkar, Jose Sleiman, Andres Sanchez-Nadales, Mileydis Alonso, John Bibawy, Marcelo Helguera, Sergio Pinski, Jose Baez-Escudero
{"title":"Safety and performance of the Medtronic 3830 lead in His-bundle and Left bundle branch area pacing: A single-center experience.","authors":"Alejandro Sanchez-Nadales, Abdullah Sarkar, Jose Sleiman, Andres Sanchez-Nadales, Mileydis Alonso, John Bibawy, Marcelo Helguera, Sergio Pinski, Jose Baez-Escudero","doi":"10.1007/s10840-025-02070-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His Bundle Pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBAP) is an evolving alternative to traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP), promising better physiological outcomes. This study evaluates the safety, feasibility, and performance of HBP and LBAP with Medtronic SelectSecure 3830 leads.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 490 patients undergoing HBP or LBAP. The study assessed implant success rates, pacing thresholds, device longevity, and complication rates over an average follow-up of 28 months for HBP and 14 months for LBAP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The implantation success rate was 85% for HBP and 97.4% for LBAP. LBAP demonstrated lower and more stable pacing thresholds, with initial values of 0.8V at 0.5 ms rising slightly to 0.9V at 0.5 ms, and fewer device revisions compared to HBP, whose initial pacing threshold of 1.3V at 0.8ms increased to 1.68 V at 0.7ms. Complications were minimal and similar across both groups. The need for fewer device revisions and potential for prolonged device life highlighted LBAP as potentially more cost-effective. Cardiac function measured by LVEF remained stable across both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both HBP and LBAP are safe and feasible with comparable safety profiles. LBAP may offer advantages in terms of stability, fewer revisions, and extended device longevity. The study underscores the need for further research into optimal lead positioning and long-term outcomes of CSP, particularly for LBAP.</p>","PeriodicalId":520675,"journal":{"name":"Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-025-02070-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His Bundle Pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBAP) is an evolving alternative to traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP), promising better physiological outcomes. This study evaluates the safety, feasibility, and performance of HBP and LBAP with Medtronic SelectSecure 3830 leads.

Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 490 patients undergoing HBP or LBAP. The study assessed implant success rates, pacing thresholds, device longevity, and complication rates over an average follow-up of 28 months for HBP and 14 months for LBAP.

Results: The implantation success rate was 85% for HBP and 97.4% for LBAP. LBAP demonstrated lower and more stable pacing thresholds, with initial values of 0.8V at 0.5 ms rising slightly to 0.9V at 0.5 ms, and fewer device revisions compared to HBP, whose initial pacing threshold of 1.3V at 0.8ms increased to 1.68 V at 0.7ms. Complications were minimal and similar across both groups. The need for fewer device revisions and potential for prolonged device life highlighted LBAP as potentially more cost-effective. Cardiac function measured by LVEF remained stable across both groups.

Conclusions: Both HBP and LBAP are safe and feasible with comparable safety profiles. LBAP may offer advantages in terms of stability, fewer revisions, and extended device longevity. The study underscores the need for further research into optimal lead positioning and long-term outcomes of CSP, particularly for LBAP.

美敦力3830导联在左束和左束分支区域起搏中的安全性和性能:单中心体验
背景:传导系统起搏(CSP)采用他束起搏(HBP)和左束分支区域起搏(LBAP)是传统右室起搏(RVP)的一种不断发展的替代方案,有望获得更好的生理效果。本研究使用美敦力SelectSecure 3830导联评估HBP和LBAP的安全性、可行性和性能。方法:我们对490例接受HBP或LBAP治疗的患者进行了单中心回顾性分析。该研究评估了植入成功率、起搏阈值、装置寿命和并发症发生率,HBP患者平均随访28个月,LBAP患者平均随访14个月。结果:HBP和LBAP的植入成功率分别为85%和97.4%。LBAP的起搏阈值更低、更稳定,0.5 ms时0.8V的初始值略微上升到0.5 ms时0.9V,与HBP相比,LBAP的起搏阈值更低、更稳定,HBP的起搏阈值从0.8ms时的1.3V上升到0.7ms时的1.68 V。两组的并发症很少且相似。需要更少的设备修改和延长设备寿命的潜力突出了LBAP可能更具成本效益。LVEF测量的心功能在两组中保持稳定。结论:HBP和LBAP都是安全可行的,具有相当的安全性。LBAP可能在稳定性、较少的修订和延长设备寿命方面具有优势。该研究强调需要进一步研究CSP的最佳导联定位和长期效果,特别是LBAP。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信