Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Septal venous channel perforation during left bundle branch area pacing: a prospective study
Authors' conclusion
When evaluated systematically, septal venous channel perforation may be encountered commonly after LBBAP.
Study context
- Population
- Consecutive patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) over 8 months
- Participants
- 61 patients
- Exposure
- Septal venous channel perforation vs no perforation during LBBAP
- Perforationn = 8
- Outcome
- Frequency of septal venous channel perforation
Methodological detailsconsecutive patients
- Consecutive patients
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Septal venous channel perforation
Perforation
13.1%
8
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Factors associated with septal venous channel perforation (with vs without perforation)
- Right-sided implant: 25% vs. 1.9%
- P = 0.04
- Fixation in zone III (mid-superior septum): 75% vs. 28.3%
- P = 0.04
- Steeper fixation angle, median θ (IQR): 19 (10-30)° vs. 5 (4-19)°
- P = 0.01
- Longer median penetrated-lead length (IQR): 13 (10-14.8) vs. 10 (8.5-12.5) mm
- P = 0.03
Coronary sinus drainage of contrast (patients with perforation)
- Coronary sinus drainage of contrast in five (62.5%) patients
Abnormal impedance drops during implantation (with vs without perforation)
- Not significantly different: 12.5% vs. 5.7%
- P = NS
Original publication
Septal venous channel perforation during left bundle branch area pacing: a prospective study. Europace. Published 4 May 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →