Left bundle branch area pacing using stylet‐driven pacing leads with a new delivery sheath: A comparison with lumen‐less leads
Jan De Pooter, Simon Calle, Frank Timmermans, Frédéric Van Heuverswyn
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) aims to achieve physiological pacing by capturing the conduction system in the area of the left bundle branch. LBBAP has exclusively been performed using lumen-less pacing leads (LLLs) with fixed helix design. This study explores the feasibility, safety, and pacing characteristics of LBBAP using stylet-driven leads (SDLs) with an extendable helix design. METHODS: Patients, in which LBBAP was attempted for bradycardia or heart failure pacing indications, were prospectively enrolled at the Ghent University Hospital. LBBAP was attempted with two different systems: 1/LLL with fixed helix (SelectSecure 3830, Medtronic Inc.) delivered through a preshaped sheath (C315His Medtronic Inc.) and 2/SDL with extendable helix (Solia S60, Biotronik, SE & CO) delivered through a new delivery sheath (Selectra 3D, Biotronik). RESULTS: The study enrolled 50 patients (mean age: 70 ± 14 years, 44% females). LBBAP with SDL was successful in 20/23 (87%) patients compared with 24/27 (89%) of patients in the LLL group (p = 0.834). Screw attempts, screw implant depth, procedural, and fluoroscopy times were comparable among both groups. Acute LBBAP thresholds were low and comparable between SDL and LLL (0.5 ± 0.15 V vs. 0.4 ± 0.17 V, p = 0.251). Pacing thresholds remained low at 3 ± 2.1 months of follow up in both groups and no lead revisions were necessary. Postprocedural echocardiography revealed a septal coronary artery fistula in one patient with SDLLBBAP. CONCLUSION: LBBAP using stylet-driven pacing leads is feasible and yields comparable implant success to LBBAP with LLLs. LBBAP thresholds are low and comparable with both types of leads.