We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing in cardiac amyloidosis. A single center experience.
Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology : PACE 2024 January
BACKGROUND: Conventional right ventricle (RV) pacemaker stimulation has been associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with cardiac amyloidosis (CA). Left bundle branch area pacing (LABPP) has been suggested as a promising alternative. We sought to assess the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of LABPP in patients with CA.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed echocardiography and pacing parameters and clinical outcomes in 23 consecutive patients with CA and LBBAP implanted from June 2020 to October 2022.
RESULTS: LBBAP was successfully performed in 22 over 23 patients (19 male, 78.6 ± 11.7 years, 20 ATTR, mean LVEF 45.5 ± 16.2%). After the procedure, 9 patients showed Qr pattern and 11 a qR pattern in V1 on ECG. Average procedure time was 67 ± 28 min. After 7.7 ± 5.2 months follow-up, no procedure-related complications had occurred. Although, a significant reduction in QRS width (p = .001) was achieved, we did not observe significant changes in LVEF and Nt ProBNP at 6 months of follow-up. Pacing parameters were stable during follow-up: LBB capture threshold and R wave amplitude were 1.0 ± 0.5 V and 10.6 ± 6.0 mV versus 0.8 ± 0.1 V, p = .21 and 10.6 ± 5.1 mV (p = .985) at follow up.
CONCLUSION: LBBAP is safe and feasible pacing technique for patients with CA. LBBAP is associated with significant narrowing of QRSd without worsening in LVEF and Nt-proBNP.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed echocardiography and pacing parameters and clinical outcomes in 23 consecutive patients with CA and LBBAP implanted from June 2020 to October 2022.
RESULTS: LBBAP was successfully performed in 22 over 23 patients (19 male, 78.6 ± 11.7 years, 20 ATTR, mean LVEF 45.5 ± 16.2%). After the procedure, 9 patients showed Qr pattern and 11 a qR pattern in V1 on ECG. Average procedure time was 67 ± 28 min. After 7.7 ± 5.2 months follow-up, no procedure-related complications had occurred. Although, a significant reduction in QRS width (p = .001) was achieved, we did not observe significant changes in LVEF and Nt ProBNP at 6 months of follow-up. Pacing parameters were stable during follow-up: LBB capture threshold and R wave amplitude were 1.0 ± 0.5 V and 10.6 ± 6.0 mV versus 0.8 ± 0.1 V, p = .21 and 10.6 ± 5.1 mV (p = .985) at follow up.
CONCLUSION: LBBAP is safe and feasible pacing technique for patients with CA. LBBAP is associated with significant narrowing of QRSd without worsening in LVEF and Nt-proBNP.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2025 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app