Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Result of the Physiologic Pacing Registry, an international multicenter prospective observational study of conduction system pacing
Authors' conclusion
This large prospective multicenter study demonstrates that CSP is technically feasible in most patients with relatively higher implant success and suggests that, with current technology, LBBAP may have better pacing parameters than HBP.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with indication for cardiac pacing (bradycardia or HF) undergoing conduction system pacing, November 2018–May 2021Conduction system pacing (CSP) attempted in 849
- Participants
- 870 patients
- Exposure
- Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs His-bundle pacing (HBP)
- LBBAPn = 251
- HBPn = 598reference
- Outcome
- Implant success, safety and electrical performance of CSP
Methodological detailsinternational, multicentre, 44 sites in 16 countries, Follow-up 6 months (5 ± 2 months) after successful CSP implant
- International
- Multicentre
- 44 sites in 16 countries
- Follow-up 6 months (5 ± 2 months) after successful CSP implant
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
P = 0.002
- Overall CSP implant success: 768 patients
- 90.4%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Capture threshold at implant
P < 0.001
Pulse width LBBAP 0.46 ± 0.15 ms · HBP 0.71 ± 0.33 ms
Capture threshold at 6 months
P < 0.001
Pulse width LBBAP 0.44 ± 0.13 ms · HBP 0.67 ± 0.31 ms
Pacing threshold rise ≥1 V · 6 months
P < 0.001
Denominator LBBAP 208 · HBP 418
Procedural and fluoroscopy duration
- Comparable between LBBAP and HBP
- P = 0.537
Safety
Serious adverse events related to implant procedure or CSP lead
P = 0.115
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →