Use of extendable helix leads for conduction system pacing: Differences in lead handling and performance lead design impacts conduction system pacing.

INTRODUCTION

Pacing leads with extendable-retractable helix (EHL) are alternatives to fixed-helix leads (FHL) for conduction system pacing (CSP), but data on handling characteristics are limited. This study evaluated a dual-center experience of lead handling and performance during CSP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with His-bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) were evaluated for the primary outcome of lead failure, defined as structural damage to the lead necessitating lead replacement. Differences in pacing characteristics were compared. Among 280 patients (mean age 74 ± 11 years, 44% male, 50% LBBP), 246 (88%) received FHL and 34 (12%) received EHL. Of 299 leads used, lead failure occurred more frequently among patients with EHL than FHL (29% vs. 2%, p < .001), regardless of CSP modality. Majority of damaged leads (89%) in the form of helix deformation were successfully removed, with failure occurring in only two patients, both EHL, leading to helix fracture and retention within the septal myocardium. EHL, compared to FHL, was associated with 25-fold increased odds of lead failure (odds ratio: 25.21, 95% confidence interval: 7.35-86.51), and persisted after adjustment in turn for age, pacing modality and indication. CSP implant success rates did not differ by lead design (FHL 80% vs. EHL 71%, p = .18), with similar pacing thresholds at implant and follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Helix deformation and fracture were more frequent with EHL in CSP despite similar implant success. These findings have significant implications for lead selection during CSP and raises concerns about the long-term extractability of EHL in CSP.