scholarly journals B-PO03-060 THE EFFECT OF HIS BUNDLE PACING LEAD THRESHOLDS AT IMPLANT ON LONG TERM LEAD PERFORMANCE

Heart Rhythm ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. S212-S213
Author(s):  
Varun Garg ◽  
Fadi Abou Obeid ◽  
Venkatesh Ravi ◽  
Muhammad Talha Ayub ◽  
Timothy R. Larsen ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. S176
Author(s):  
M. Emami ◽  
A. Thiyagarajah ◽  
R. Mishima ◽  
D. Linz ◽  
K. Kadhim ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 263246362097804
Author(s):  
Vanita Arora ◽  
Pawan Suri

Anatomy and physiology are the basis of human body functioning and as we have progressed in management of various diseases, we have understood that physiological intervention is always better than an anatomical one. For more than 50 years, a standard approach to permanent cardiac pacing has been an anatomical placement of transvenous pacing lead at the right ventricular apex with a proven benefit of restoring the rhythm. However, the resultant ventricular dyssynchrony on the long-term follow-up in patients requiring more than 40% ventricular pacing led to untoward side effects in the form of heart failure and arrhythmias. To counter such adverse side effects, a need for physiological cardiac pacing wherein the electrical impulse be transmitted directly through the normal conduction system was sought. His bundle pacing (HBP) with an intriguing alternative of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is aimed at restoring such physiological activation of ventricles. HBP is safe, efficacious, and feasible; however, localization and placement of a pacing lead at the His bundle is challenging with existing transvenous systems due to its small anatomic size, surrounding fibrous tissue, long-learning curve, and the concern remains about lead dislodgement and progressive electrical block distal to the HBP lead. In this article, we aim to take the reader through the challenging journey of HBP with focus upon the hardware and technique, selective versus nonselective HBP, indications and potential disadvantages, and finally the future prospects.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-77
Author(s):  
A V Zholkovskiy ◽  
F V Sklyarov ◽  
G V Chudinov ◽  
A V Ponomarev ◽  
N A Peskov ◽  
...  

Analysing the example of unusual case of a successful direct constant His bundle pacing, we would like to draw specialist’s attention to details of procedure and some important electrophysiological particularities we have come across during operation. Long-term (7 years) results ( pacing options, ECG data, changes of left ventricle ejection fraction and patient’s quality of life) were considered too.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 760-765
Author(s):  
Satoshi Yanagisawa ◽  
Yasuya Inden ◽  
Hiroyuki Kato ◽  
Hirohiko Suzuki ◽  
Masaya Fujita ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (11) ◽  
pp. 1412-1416
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Kato ◽  
Osamu Igawa ◽  
Kazumasa Suga ◽  
Hisashi Murakami ◽  
Kenji Kada ◽  
...  

Heart ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 105 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weijian Huang ◽  
Lan Su ◽  
Shengjie Wu ◽  
Lei Xu ◽  
Fangyi Xiao ◽  
...  

ObjectivesHis bundle pacing (HBP) can potentially correct left bundle branch block (LBBB). We aimed to assess the efficacy of HBP to correct LBBB and long-term clinical outcomes with HBP in patients with heart failure (HF).MethodsThis is an observational study of patients with HF with typical LBBB who were indicated for pacing therapy and were consecutively enrolled from one centre. Permanent HBP leads were implanted if the LBBB correction threshold was <3.5V/0.5 ms or 3.0 V/1.0 ms. Pacing parameters, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class were assessed during follow-up.ResultsIn 74 enrolled patients (69.6±9.2 years and 43 men), LBBB correction was acutely achieved in 72 (97.3%) patients, and 56 (75.7%) patients received permanent HBP (pHBP) while 18 patients did not receive permanent HBP (non-permanent HBP), due to no LBBB correction (n=2), high LBBB correction thresholds (n=10) and fixation failure (n=6). The median follow-up period of pHBP was 37.1 (range 15.0–48.7) months. Thirty patients with pHBP had completed 3-year follow-up, with LVEF increased from baseline 32.4±8.9% to 55.9±10.7% (p<0.001), LVESV decreased from a baseline of 137.9±64.1 mL to 52.4±32.6 mL (p<0.001) and NYHA Class improvement from baseline 2.73±0.58 to 1.03±0.18 (p<0.001). LBBB correction threshold remained stable with acute threshold of 2.13±1.19 V/0.5 ms to 2.29±0.92 V/0.5 ms at 3-year follow-up (p>0.05).ConclusionspHBP improved LVEF, LVESV and NYHA Class in patients with HF with typical LBBB.


Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman ◽  
Kenneth A Ellenbogen ◽  
Gopi Dandamudi

Introduction: Focal disease in the main body of the His bundle (HB) is the cause for majority of the bundle branch block (BBB) patterns on EKG. Temporary distal HB pacing (HBP) has previously been shown to correct BBB in high number of patients. Anecdotal reports have confirmed abolition of BBB by permanent HBP. Hypothesis: The aim of our study is to report the incidence of correction of BBB during permanent HBP in patients undergoing pacemaker (PM) implantation. Methods: Permanent HBP was attempted in 185 patients referred for PM implantation. Pts with QRS duration (d) ≥110 ms and BBB were included in the study. Pts with normal QRS or CHB were excluded. HBP was performed using the Medtronic SelectSecure 3830 pacing lead. Baseline QRSd, paced QRSd, correction of BBB and HB pacing threshold were recorded. Results: Fifty patients met the inclusion-exclusion criteria. Mean age 73±12 yrs; men 65%, HTN 81%, DM 30%, CAD 38%, AF 42%, SSS 39%, AV disease 61%, RBBB 31, LBBB 14, IVCD 5). Permanent HBP was successful in correcting BBB in 42 (84%) patients. Underlying BBB was corrected by HBP in 29 of 31 (94%) patients with RBBB; 11 of 14 (79%) patients with LBBB; 1 of 5 (20%) patients with IVCD. Baseline QRSd improved from 141±15 ms to 124±17 ms. HBP threshold at implant was 1.5±1.3 V @ 0.5 ms. Conclusions: Permanent HBP corrected underlying BBB in the vast majority of patients with right or left BBB (40 of 45, 89%) compared to only 1 of 5 (20%) patients with IVCD. This confirms that focal disease in the main HB is the cause for BBB in the patients referred for PM implantation.


Circulation ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 101 (8) ◽  
pp. 836-837 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melvin M. Scheinman ◽  
Leslie A. Saxon

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document