Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Procedural outcome and follow-up of stylet-driven leads compared with lumenless leads for left bundle branch area pacing
Authors' conclusion
Left bundle branch area pacing may be safely and effectively performed using either LLLs or SDLs, which provides implanters with alternatives for delivering this therapy.
Study context
- Population
- Consecutive patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implantationage 77 ± 11 years, 183 males
- Participants
- 306 patients
- Exposure
- Stylet-driven leads vs lumenless leads for LBBAP
- Outcome
- LBBAP implantation success rate by initial lead type
Methodological detailssingle-centre, consecutive patients
- Single-centre
- Consecutive patients
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Success rate
P = 0.56
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Success by lead model
- No significant differences in success between lead models
ECG and electrical parameters
- Comparable between the groups
Safety
Post-operative macro-dislodgement · essentially within the first day
- Overall macro-dislodgement, no differences between groups
- 4.3%
Presumed micro-dislodgement (loss of conduction system capture or rise in threshold) · mostly during the first month
- Overall micro-dislodgement, no differences between groups
- 4.7%
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Procedural outcome and follow-up of stylet-driven leads compared with lumenless leads for left bundle branch area pacing. Europace. Published 28 September 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →