Short-term safety and feasibility of a practical approach to combined atrial and ventricular physiological pacing: An initial single-center experience.

BACKGROUND

Traditional right atrial appendage (RAA) pacing accentuates conduction disturbances as opposed to Bachmann bundle pacing (BBP).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of routine anatomically guided high right atrial septal (HRAS) pacing with activation of Bachmann bundle combined with routine left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP).

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included 96 consecutive patients who underwent 1 of 2 strategies: physiological pacing (PP) (n = 32) with HRAS and LBBAP leads and conventional pacing (CP) (n = 64) with traditional RAA and right ventricular apical leads. Baseline characteristics, sensing, pacing thresholds, and impedances were recorded at implantation and follow-up.

RESULTS

The PP and CP cohorts were of similar age (74.2 ± 13.8 years vs 73.9 ± 9.9 years) and sex (28.1% vs 40.6% female). There were no differences in procedural time (95.0 ± 31.4 minutes vs 86.5 ± 33.3 minutes; = .19) or fluoroscopy time (12.1 ± 4.5 minutes vs 12.3 ± 13.5 minutes; = .89) between cohorts. After excluding patients who received >2 leads, these parameters became significantly shorter in the CP cohort. The PP cohort exhibited higher atrial pacing thresholds (1.5 ± 1.1 mV vs 0.8 ± 0.3 mV; <.001) and lower p waves (1.8 ± 0.8 mV vs 3.8 ± 2.3 mV; <.001) at implantation and at follow-up. In the PP cohort, 72% of implants met criteria for BBP; of the ventricular leads, 94% demonstrated evidence of LBBAP. One lead-related complication occurred in each cohort.

CONCLUSION

Routine placement of leads in the HRAS is a feasible and safe alternative to standard RAA pacing, allowing for BBP in 72% of patients. HRAS pacing can be combined with LBBAP as a routine strategy.