BackgroundAutomated threshold measurements (ATM) and output adaptation improved safety and follow-up of cardiac implantable devices (CIED) in the last years. These algorithms were validated for conventional cardiac pacing; however, they were not suitable for permanent His Pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging technique to obtain physiologic cardiac stimulation; we tried to assess if ATM could be applied to this setting. MethodsConsecutive patients receiving ATM-capable CIED and LBBAP in our hospital were enrolled in this prospective, observational trial; they were evaluated 3 months after implant, comparing pacing thresholds manually assessed and obtained via ATM. Subsequent remote follow-up was carried on when available. ResultsForty-five patients were enrolled. ATM for LBBAP lead provided consistent results in all the patients and was therefore activated; mean value of manually obtained LBBAP capture threshold was 0.66 & PLUSMN; 0.19 V versus ATM of 0.64 & PLUSMN; 0.19 V. TOST analysis showed equivalence of the two measures (p = .66). At subsequent follow-up (mean follow up 7.7 & PLUSMN; 3.2 months), ATM was effective in assessing pacing thresholds and no clinical adverse event was observed. ConclusionsATM algorithms proved equivalent to manual testing in determining capture threshold and were reliably employed in patients receiving LBBAP CIED.
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) Auto Threshold algorithms Evaluation for Conduction System Pacing: The LATECS pilot Trial
Ghiglieno, Chiara;Dell'Era, Gabriele;Veroli, Alessandro;De Vecchi, Federica;Santagostino, Matteo;Patti, Giuseppe
2023-01-01
Abstract
BackgroundAutomated threshold measurements (ATM) and output adaptation improved safety and follow-up of cardiac implantable devices (CIED) in the last years. These algorithms were validated for conventional cardiac pacing; however, they were not suitable for permanent His Pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging technique to obtain physiologic cardiac stimulation; we tried to assess if ATM could be applied to this setting. MethodsConsecutive patients receiving ATM-capable CIED and LBBAP in our hospital were enrolled in this prospective, observational trial; they were evaluated 3 months after implant, comparing pacing thresholds manually assessed and obtained via ATM. Subsequent remote follow-up was carried on when available. ResultsForty-five patients were enrolled. ATM for LBBAP lead provided consistent results in all the patients and was therefore activated; mean value of manually obtained LBBAP capture threshold was 0.66 & PLUSMN; 0.19 V versus ATM of 0.64 & PLUSMN; 0.19 V. TOST analysis showed equivalence of the two measures (p = .66). At subsequent follow-up (mean follow up 7.7 & PLUSMN; 3.2 months), ATM was effective in assessing pacing thresholds and no clinical adverse event was observed. ConclusionsATM algorithms proved equivalent to manual testing in determining capture threshold and were reliably employed in patients receiving LBBAP CIED.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
