open access

Vol 80, No 4 (2022)
Original article
Published online: 2022-02-15
Get Citation

Feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing in very elderly patients (≥80 years)

Zhixin Jiang1, Yifan Chen1, Chongchong Chen1, Meng Chen1, Yuanyuan Chen1, Tian Wu1, Wen Yang1, Xiujuan Zhou1, Qijun Shan1
DOI: 10.33963/KP.a2022.0048
·
Pubmed: 35167114
·
Kardiol Pol 2022;80(4):452-460.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Cardiology, 1st Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing, China

open access

Vol 80, No 4 (2022)
Original article
Published online: 2022-02-15

Abstract

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a promising physiologic pacing strategy. Though many clinical studies have established the feasibility and safety of LBBAP, the data for very elderly patients are lacking.
Aims: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of LBBAP in very elderly patients (≥80 years).
Methods: Two hundred and forty consecutive patients who received LBBAP implantation were retrospectively enrolled in the present study. Inclusion criteria were patients with atrioventricular block, atrial fibrillation with a slow ventricular response, and heart failure with bundle branch block. The patients were divided into two groups: those aged ≥80 years and those aged <80 years.  LBBAP implantation was successfully performed in 48 of 53 (90.6%) very elderly patients and 162 of 187 (86.5%) counterparts. In the very elderly group, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 84 (3) years, mean (SD) paced QRS duration was 112.4 (9.0), and the mean (SD) stimulus to R wave peak time was 82.0 (14.2) ms. Mean (SD) pacing thresholds and mean (SD) R wave sensing were 0.61(0.21) V and 12.1 (4.7) mV at implant. Pacing parameters in very elderly patients were similar to those in their counterparts. During a median follow-up of 6 months, pacing parameters remained stable. Five patients in the very elderly group developed complications (1 with septal perforation during the procedure, 1 with pocket hematoma, 1 with pacing threshold increase, and 2 with micro lead dislodgement during follow-up).
Conclusion: LBBAP is safe and effective in patients ≥80 years old. LBBAP can be considered as an alternative method for delivering physiological pacing in this special population.

Abstract

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a promising physiologic pacing strategy. Though many clinical studies have established the feasibility and safety of LBBAP, the data for very elderly patients are lacking.
Aims: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of LBBAP in very elderly patients (≥80 years).
Methods: Two hundred and forty consecutive patients who received LBBAP implantation were retrospectively enrolled in the present study. Inclusion criteria were patients with atrioventricular block, atrial fibrillation with a slow ventricular response, and heart failure with bundle branch block. The patients were divided into two groups: those aged ≥80 years and those aged <80 years.  LBBAP implantation was successfully performed in 48 of 53 (90.6%) very elderly patients and 162 of 187 (86.5%) counterparts. In the very elderly group, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 84 (3) years, mean (SD) paced QRS duration was 112.4 (9.0), and the mean (SD) stimulus to R wave peak time was 82.0 (14.2) ms. Mean (SD) pacing thresholds and mean (SD) R wave sensing were 0.61(0.21) V and 12.1 (4.7) mV at implant. Pacing parameters in very elderly patients were similar to those in their counterparts. During a median follow-up of 6 months, pacing parameters remained stable. Five patients in the very elderly group developed complications (1 with septal perforation during the procedure, 1 with pocket hematoma, 1 with pacing threshold increase, and 2 with micro lead dislodgement during follow-up).
Conclusion: LBBAP is safe and effective in patients ≥80 years old. LBBAP can be considered as an alternative method for delivering physiological pacing in this special population.

Get Citation

Keywords

feasibility, left bundle branch area pacing, physiological pacing, very elderly patients, safety

Supp./Additional Files (1)
Supplementary material
Download
224KB
About this article
Title

Feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing in very elderly patients (≥80 years)

Journal

Kardiologia Polska (Polish Heart Journal)

Issue

Vol 80, No 4 (2022)

Article type

Original article

Pages

452-460

Published online

2022-02-15

Page views

291

Article views/downloads

136

DOI

10.33963/KP.a2022.0048

Pubmed

35167114

Bibliographic record

Kardiol Pol 2022;80(4):452-460.

Keywords

feasibility
left bundle branch area pacing
physiological pacing
very elderly patients
safety

Authors

Zhixin Jiang
Yifan Chen
Chongchong Chen
Meng Chen
Yuanyuan Chen
Tian Wu
Wen Yang
Xiujuan Zhou
Qijun Shan

References (20)
  1. Forman DE, Rich MW, Alexander KP, et al. Cardiac care for older adults. Time for a new paradigm. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57(18): 1801–1810.
  2. Chow GV, Marine JE, Fleg JL. Epidemiology of arrhythmias and conduction disorders in older adults. Clin Geriatr Med. 2012; 28(4): 539–553.
  3. Matsuda Y, Masuda M, Asai M, et al. Comparison of prognosis and safety of pacemaker implantation in patients aged less than or 85 years and older. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2021; 61(1): 171–179.
  4. Krzemień-Wolska K, Tomasik A, Wojciechowska C, et al. Prognostic factors in patients with an implanted pacemaker after 80 years of age in a 4-year follow-up. Gerontology. 2018; 64(2): 107–117.
  5. Vijayaraman P, Subzposh FA, Naperkowski A, et al. Prospective evaluation of feasibility and electrophysiologic and echocardiographic characteristics of left bundle branch area pacing. Heart Rhythm. 2019; 16(12): 1774–1782.
  6. Chen K, Li Y, Dai Y, et al. Comparison of electrocardiogram characteristics and pacing parameters between left bundle branch pacing and right ventricular pacing in patients receiving pacemaker therapy. Europace. 2019; 21(4): 673–680.
  7. Hou X, Qian Z, Wang Y, et al. Feasibility and cardiac synchrony of permanent left bundle branch pacing through the interventricular septum. Europace. 2019; 21(11): 1694–1702.
  8. Huang W, Wu S, Vijayaraman P, et al. Left Bundle Branch Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Nonrandomized On-Treatment Comparison With His Bundle Pacing and Biventricular Pacing. Can J Cardiol. 2021; 37(2): 319–328.
  9. Jiang Z, Chang Q, Wu Y, et al. Typical BBB morphology and implantation depth of 3830 electrode predict QRS correction by left bundle branch area pacing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2020; 43(1): 110–117.
  10. Jastrzębski M, Kiełbasa G, Curila K, et al. Physiology-based electrocardiographic criteria for left bundle branch capture. Heart Rhythm. 2021; 18(6): 935–943.
  11. Cai B, Huang X, Li L, et al. Evaluation of cardiac synchrony in left bundle branch pacing: Insights from echocardiographic research. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020; 31(2): 560–569.
  12. Mandawat A, Curtis JP, Mandawat A, et al. Safety of pacemaker implantation in nonagenarians: an analysis of the healthcare cost and utilization project-nationwide inpatient sample. Circulation. 2013; 127(14): 1453–65, 1465e1.
  13. Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Barrett C, et al. 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2019; 140(8): e382–e482.
  14. Michowitz Y, Kronborg MB, Glikson M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Europace. 2022; 24(1): 71–164.
  15. Huang W, Su L, Wu S, et al. A novel pacing strategy with low and stable output: pacing the left bundle branch immediately beyond the conduction block. Can J Cardiol. 2017; 33(12): 1736.e1–1736.e3.
  16. Li Y, Chen K, Dai Y, et al. Left bundle branch pacing for symptomatic bradycardia: Implant success rate, safety, and pacing characteristics. Heart Rhythm. 2019; 16(12): 1758–1765.
  17. Ji W, Chen X, Shen J, et al. Left bundle branch pacing improved heart function in a 10-year-old child after a 3-month follow-up. Europace. 2020; 22(8): 1234–1239.
  18. Chen X, Wei L, Bai J, et al. Procedure-Related complications of left bundle branch pacing: a single-center experience. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021; 8: 645947.
  19. Ravi V, Hanifin JL, Larsen T, et al. Pros and cons of left bundle branch pacing: a single-center experience. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020; 13(12): e008874.
  20. Jastrzębski M, Moskal P. Reaching the left bundle branch pacing area within 36 heartbeats. Kardiol Pol. 2021; 79(5): 587–588.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Sp. z o.o. VM Group Sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73 , 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

phone:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl