Introduction: Conduction system pacing (CSP) is an increasingly used physiologic pacing modality by either His-bundle pacing (HBP) or left-bundle area pacing (LBAP). However, operators new to this technique may hesitate to implement CSP. We describe a single operator's experience (learning curve, clinical outcomes) with CSP from 07/2016-05/2022. Methods: Retrospective analysis of all 3830 Medtronic SelectSecure leads implanted by one operator at an academic institution. Patient characteristics, procedure times, ECG findings, pacing parameters, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: A total of 140 CSP cases (Medtronic 3830 lead) were attempted over 70 months (78 HBP, 62 LBAP). Implant frequency (year → # of cases): 2016 → 3; 2017 → 5; 2018 → 24; 2019 → 25; 2020 → 36; 2021 → 35; 2022 → 12. The last HBP lead was implanted in March 2021; the 1st LBAP lead was implanted in December 2019. There were 23 unsuccessful attempts to achieve CSP at initial implantation (18 in the 1st 34%, mainly HBP cases; 5 in the last 92 cases) and 5 revisions (all HBP, see figure ). Procedure times shortened after the 1st 25 procedures for both HBP (158 to 132 mins, P=0.028) and LBAP (174 to 133 mins, P=0.002). Mean follow-up: HBP=558.2 days and LBAP=109 days. Ten patients (4 HBP, 6 LBAP) were lost to follow up. LBAP leads showed significantly better capture thresholds compared to HBP at implant and follow-up, although QRS narrowing, LV activation times, and improvement in LV function were not significantly different (see table). Conclusion: LBAP is easier to learn and has fewer failure rates as compared to HBP. Procedure times improve with experience within 25 cases. Majority of failed attempts were in the first third of cases, and all but one were in the HBP group. Operators new to CSP should forego HBP and employ LBAP. LBAP provides similar reductions in QRS duration, LV activation times, and LVEF improvement as compared to HBP, but with lower failure/revision rates and superior long-term pacing thresholds.
Read full abstract