Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Comparison of Procedural Outcomes of Lumenless Fixed-Helix Versus Stylet-Driven Extendable-Helix Lead Systems in Left Bundle Branch Pacing: COMPARE Left Bundle Branch Pacing (LBBP)
Authors' conclusion
LBBP was feasible with both lead systems with similar success rate and low capture threshold. No significant difference was observed in procedure duration or fluoroscopy use. No major complications were recorded with either lead.
Study context
- Population
- Consecutive patients with bradyarrhythmia, CRT indication, or ablate and pace strategy undergoing LBBP
- Participants
- 100 patients
- Comparison
- Stylet-driven lead vs lumenless lead for left bundle branch pacing
- Primary endpoint
- Acute success in LBBP
Methodological details1:1 randomisation
- 1:1 randomisation
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
P = 0.7
Further findings
Implant duration
P = 0.4
Fluoroscopy time
P = 0.7
Fluoroscopy dose
P = 0.5
| Outcome | SDL | LLL | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Screw attempts (successful LBBP) | 2.3 ± 1.7 | 1.9 ± 1.3 | P = 0.2 |
Pacing threshold · implant, 1, 3 and 6 months
- Comparable at implant and on follow-up
Safety
- Lead failure not significantly different
- P = 0.6
- Microdislodgement not significantly different
- P = 1
- Macrodislodgement not significantly different
- P = 0.6
Original publication
Comparison of Procedural Outcomes of Lumenless Fixed-Helix Versus Stylet-Driven Extendable-Helix Lead Systems in Left Bundle Branch Pacing: COMPARE LBBP. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. Published 29 November 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →