左束支起搏导联植入的学习曲线。

Q3 Medicine
Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management Pub Date : 2025-05-15 eCollection Date: 2025-05-01 DOI:10.19102/icrm.2025.16055
Maci Clark, Hannah Zerr, Ben Ose, David Fritz, Caroline Trupp, Amulya Gupta, Ahmed Shahab, Amit Noheria, Seth H Sheldon
{"title":"左束支起搏导联植入的学习曲线。","authors":"Maci Clark, Hannah Zerr, Ben Ose, David Fritz, Caroline Trupp, Amulya Gupta, Ahmed Shahab, Amit Noheria, Seth H Sheldon","doi":"10.19102/icrm.2025.16055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has shown promising outcomes at experienced centers; however, less is known about the learning curve with initial adoption of LBBAP implantation. We conducted a retrospective analysis (2020-2023) of the learning curve for LBBAP at an academic medical center. Procedural success and device-related adverse events in adult patients undergoing LBBAP by seven new operators with >5 years' experience in device implantation were compared between operators with a history of ≤10 (LBBAP<sub>inexp</sub>) versus >10 (LBBAP<sub>exp</sub>) LBBAP implant attempts. Successful LBBAP was defined as a left ventricular activation time (LVAT) of ≤80 ms. Seven operators implanted LBBAP devices in 288 patients (age, 73 ± 11 years; 38% women), including 68 (24%) in the LBBAP<sub>inexp</sub> group versus 220 (76%) patients in the LBBAP<sub>exp</sub> group with similar baseline characteristics. The median number of implants per operator was 22 (range, 8-83). Post-implant LVAT ≤ 80 ms was less frequent in LBBAP<sub>inexp</sub> compared to LBBAP<sub>exp</sub> (56.9% vs 72.4%; <i>P</i> = .04). There were no significant differences in paced QRS duration ≤ 130 ms (75.9% vs. 76.1%; <i>P</i> = 1.0) or operator self-identified success (85% vs. 91%; <i>P</i> = .2). With new single-/dual-chamber device implants, there was no difference in implant duration (103.4 ± 31.8 vs. 101.6 ± 38.5 min; <i>P</i> = .3), but there was longer fluoroscopy with LBBAP<sub>inexp</sub> (12.6 ± 10.1 vs. 8.2 ± 8.0 min; <i>P</i> < .0001). The average number of attempts at LBBAP was lower with LBBAP<sub>inexp</sub> versus LBBAP<sub>exp</sub> (2.0 ± 1.5 vs. 2.9 ± 2.9; <i>P</i> = .03). There was no difference in device-related adverse events between the two groups (<i>P</i> = .3). Operators use less fluoroscopy, make more attempts at LBBAP, and more frequently achieve LVAT ≤ 80 ms after their first 10 implants.</p>","PeriodicalId":36299,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management","volume":"16 5","pages":"6284-6291"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12140124/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning Curve for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Lead Implantation.\",\"authors\":\"Maci Clark, Hannah Zerr, Ben Ose, David Fritz, Caroline Trupp, Amulya Gupta, Ahmed Shahab, Amit Noheria, Seth H Sheldon\",\"doi\":\"10.19102/icrm.2025.16055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has shown promising outcomes at experienced centers; however, less is known about the learning curve with initial adoption of LBBAP implantation. We conducted a retrospective analysis (2020-2023) of the learning curve for LBBAP at an academic medical center. Procedural success and device-related adverse events in adult patients undergoing LBBAP by seven new operators with >5 years' experience in device implantation were compared between operators with a history of ≤10 (LBBAP<sub>inexp</sub>) versus >10 (LBBAP<sub>exp</sub>) LBBAP implant attempts. Successful LBBAP was defined as a left ventricular activation time (LVAT) of ≤80 ms. Seven operators implanted LBBAP devices in 288 patients (age, 73 ± 11 years; 38% women), including 68 (24%) in the LBBAP<sub>inexp</sub> group versus 220 (76%) patients in the LBBAP<sub>exp</sub> group with similar baseline characteristics. The median number of implants per operator was 22 (range, 8-83). Post-implant LVAT ≤ 80 ms was less frequent in LBBAP<sub>inexp</sub> compared to LBBAP<sub>exp</sub> (56.9% vs 72.4%; <i>P</i> = .04). There were no significant differences in paced QRS duration ≤ 130 ms (75.9% vs. 76.1%; <i>P</i> = 1.0) or operator self-identified success (85% vs. 91%; <i>P</i> = .2). With new single-/dual-chamber device implants, there was no difference in implant duration (103.4 ± 31.8 vs. 101.6 ± 38.5 min; <i>P</i> = .3), but there was longer fluoroscopy with LBBAP<sub>inexp</sub> (12.6 ± 10.1 vs. 8.2 ± 8.0 min; <i>P</i> < .0001). The average number of attempts at LBBAP was lower with LBBAP<sub>inexp</sub> versus LBBAP<sub>exp</sub> (2.0 ± 1.5 vs. 2.9 ± 2.9; <i>P</i> = .03). There was no difference in device-related adverse events between the two groups (<i>P</i> = .3). Operators use less fluoroscopy, make more attempts at LBBAP, and more frequently achieve LVAT ≤ 80 ms after their first 10 implants.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management\",\"volume\":\"16 5\",\"pages\":\"6284-6291\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12140124/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2025.16055\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2025.16055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

左束支区起搏(LBBAP)在经验丰富的中心显示出良好的效果;然而,对于最初采用LBBAP植入的学习曲线知之甚少。我们对某学术医疗中心LBBAP的学习曲线进行了回顾性分析(2020-2023年)。我们比较了7位具有5年LBBAP植入经验的新操作者在LBBAP植入史≤10 (LBBAPinexp)和> (LBBAPexp) LBBAP植入史的操作者在LBBAP植入史上的手术成功率和器械相关不良事件。LBBAP成功定义为左心室激活时间(LVAT)≤80 ms。7名手术人员植入LBBAP装置288例(年龄73±11岁;其中,基线特征相似的LBBAPinexp组68例(24%),LBBAPexp组220例(76%)。每位手术者植入物的中位数为22(范围8-83)。植入后LVAT≤80 ms在LBBAPinexp组的发生率低于LBBAPinexp组(56.9% vs 72.4%;P = .04)。节律性QRS持续时间≤130 ms无显著差异(75.9% vs. 76.1%;P = 1.0)或操作者自我识别的成功率(85% vs 91%;P = .2)。使用新的单腔/双腔器械种植体,种植时间无差异(103.4±31.8 vs 101.6±38.5 min);P = .3),但使用LBBAPinexp的透视时间较长(12.6±10.1 vs 8.2±8.0 min;P < 0.0001)。LBBAPinexp对LBBAPexp的平均尝试次数较低(2.0±1.5比2.9±2.9;P = .03)。两组患者器械相关不良事件发生率无差异(P = .3)。操作者较少使用透视检查,对LBBAP进行更多尝试,并且在前10次植入后更频繁地达到LVAT≤80 ms。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Learning Curve for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Lead Implantation.

Learning Curve for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Lead Implantation.

Learning Curve for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Lead Implantation.

Learning Curve for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Lead Implantation.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has shown promising outcomes at experienced centers; however, less is known about the learning curve with initial adoption of LBBAP implantation. We conducted a retrospective analysis (2020-2023) of the learning curve for LBBAP at an academic medical center. Procedural success and device-related adverse events in adult patients undergoing LBBAP by seven new operators with >5 years' experience in device implantation were compared between operators with a history of ≤10 (LBBAPinexp) versus >10 (LBBAPexp) LBBAP implant attempts. Successful LBBAP was defined as a left ventricular activation time (LVAT) of ≤80 ms. Seven operators implanted LBBAP devices in 288 patients (age, 73 ± 11 years; 38% women), including 68 (24%) in the LBBAPinexp group versus 220 (76%) patients in the LBBAPexp group with similar baseline characteristics. The median number of implants per operator was 22 (range, 8-83). Post-implant LVAT ≤ 80 ms was less frequent in LBBAPinexp compared to LBBAPexp (56.9% vs 72.4%; P = .04). There were no significant differences in paced QRS duration ≤ 130 ms (75.9% vs. 76.1%; P = 1.0) or operator self-identified success (85% vs. 91%; P = .2). With new single-/dual-chamber device implants, there was no difference in implant duration (103.4 ± 31.8 vs. 101.6 ± 38.5 min; P = .3), but there was longer fluoroscopy with LBBAPinexp (12.6 ± 10.1 vs. 8.2 ± 8.0 min; P < .0001). The average number of attempts at LBBAP was lower with LBBAPinexp versus LBBAPexp (2.0 ± 1.5 vs. 2.9 ± 2.9; P = .03). There was no difference in device-related adverse events between the two groups (P = .3). Operators use less fluoroscopy, make more attempts at LBBAP, and more frequently achieve LVAT ≤ 80 ms after their first 10 implants.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management
Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
×
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