Department of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Leipzig, Strümpellstr. 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany.
Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Heart Center, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Europace. 2021 Mar 8;23(3):409-420. doi: 10.1093/europace/euaa292.
Conventional His bundle pacing (HBP) can be technically challenging and fluoroscopy-intense, particularly in patients with His-Purkinje conduction disease (HPCD). Three-dimensional electroanatomical mapping (EAM) facilitates non-fluoroscopic lead navigation and HB electrogram mapping. We sought to assess the procedural outcome of routine EAM-guided HBP compared with conventional HBP in a real-world population and evaluate the feasibility and safety of EAM-guided HBP in patients with HPCD.
We included 58 consecutive patients (72 ± 13 years; 71% male) who underwent an attempt to conventional (EAM- group; n = 29) or EAM-guided (EAM+ group; n = 29) HBP between June 2019 and April 2020. The centre's learning curve was initially determined (n = 40 cases) to define the conventional control group and minimize outcome bias favouring EAM-guided HBP. His bundle pacing was successful in 26 patients (90%) in the EAM+ and 27 patients (93%) in the EAM- group (P = 0.64). The procedure time was 90 (73-135) and 110 (70-130) min, respectively (P = 0.89). The total fluoroscopy time [0.7 (0.5-1.4) vs. 3.3 (1.4-6.5) min; P < 0.001] and fluoroscopy dose [21.9 (9.1-47.7) vs. 78.6 (27.2-144.9) cGycm2; P = 0.001] were significantly lower in the EAM+ than EAM- group. There were no significant differences between groups in His capture threshold (1.2 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0 V/1.0 ms; P = 0.33) and paced QRS duration (113 ± 15 vs. 113 ± 17 ms; P = 0.89). In patients with HPCD, paced QRS duration was similar in both groups (121 ± 15 vs. 123 ± 12 ms; P = 0.77). The bundle branch-block recruitment threshold tended to be lower in the EAM+ than EAM- group (1.3 ± 0.7 vs. 1.8 ± 1.2 V/1.0 ms; P = 0.31). No immediate procedure-related complications occurred. One patient (2%) experienced lead dislodgement during 4-week follow-up.
Implementation of routine EAM-guided HBP lead implantation is feasible and safe in a real-world cohort of patients with and without HPCD and results in a tremendous reduction in radiation exposure without prolonging procedure time or increasing procedure-related complications.
传统希氏束起搏(HBP)在技术上具有挑战性,并且需要大量的透视,特别是在存在希氏-浦肯野传导疾病(HPCD)的患者中。三维电解剖标测(EAM)有助于非透视引导的导线导航和 HB 电图标测。我们旨在评估在真实人群中常规 EAM 引导的 HBP 与传统 HBP 的手术结果,并评估 EAM 引导的 HBP 在 HPCD 患者中的可行性和安全性。
我们纳入了 58 例连续患者(72±13 岁;71%为男性),他们在 2019 年 6 月至 2020 年 4 月期间尝试进行传统(EAM-组;n=29)或 EAM 引导的(EAM+组;n=29)HBP。最初确定了中心的学习曲线(n=40 例),以定义传统对照组并最大程度地减少有利于 EAM 引导的 HBP 的结果偏差。在 EAM+组中有 26 例(90%)和 EAM-组中有 27 例(93%)患者成功进行了 HBP(P=0.64)。手术时间分别为 90(73-135)和 110(70-130)分钟(P=0.89)。总透视时间[0.7(0.5-1.4)比 3.3(1.4-6.5)分钟;P<0.001]和透视剂量[21.9(9.1-47.7)比 78.6(27.2-144.9)cGycm2;P=0.001]在 EAM+组中明显低于 EAM-组。两组之间希氏束捕获阈值(1.2±0.6 比 1.4±1.0 V/1.0 ms;P=0.33)和起搏 QRS 持续时间(113±15 比 113±17 ms;P=0.89)无显著差异。在 HPCD 患者中,两组的起搏 QRS 持续时间相似(121±15 比 123±12 ms;P=0.77)。EAM+组的束支阻滞募集阈值趋于低于 EAM-组(1.3±0.7 比 1.8±1.2 V/1.0 ms;P=0.31)。没有立即出现与程序相关的并发症。一名患者(2%)在 4 周随访期间发生导线脱位。
在存在和不存在 HPCD 的真实患者人群中,常规 EAM 引导的 HBP 导线植入是可行且安全的,并且可大大减少辐射暴露,而不会延长手术时间或增加与手术相关的并发症。