Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Comparative data on the risk of complications between CSP and RVP are lacking.
This prospective, multicenter, observational study aimed to compare the long-term risk of device-related complications between CSP and RVP.
A total of 1029 consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation with CSP (including HBP and LBBAP) or RVP were enrolled. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 201 matched pairs. The rate and nature of device-related complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups.
During a mean follow-up duration of 18 months, device-related complications were observed in 19 patients: 7 in RVP (3.5%) and 12 in CSP (6.0%) (P = .240). On dividing the matched cohort into 3 groups with similar baseline characteristics according to pacing modality (RVP, n = 201; HBP, n = 128; LBBAP, n = 73), patients with HBP showed a significantly higher rate of device-related complications than did patients with RVP (8.6% vs 3.5%; P = .047) and patients with LBBAP (8.6% vs 1.3%; P = .034). Patients with LBBAP showed a rate of device-related complications similar to that of patients with RVP (1.3% vs 3.5%; P = .358). Most of the complications observed in patients with HBP (63.6%) were lead related.
Globally, CSP was associated with a risk of complications similar to that of RVP. Considering HBP and LBBAP separately, HBP showed a significantly higher risk of complications than did both RVP and LBBAP whereas LBBAP showed a risk of complications similar to that of RVP.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Heart Rhythm
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Rate, causes, and impact on patient outcome of implantable device complications requiring surgical revision: large population survey from two centres in Italy.Europace. 2013; 15: 531-540
- Impact on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality of cardiac implantable electronic device complications: results from the POINTED Registry.JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020; 6: 382-392
- Incidence and predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with complete atrioventricular block and preserved left ventricular systolic function.Heart Rhythm. 2016; 13: 2272-2278
- Permanent, direct His-bundle pacing: a novel approach to cardiac pacing in patients with normal His-Purkinje activation.Circulation. 2000; 101: 869-877
- Permanent His-bundle pacing: long-term lead performance and clinical outcomes.Heart Rhythm. 2018; 15: 696-702
- A novel pacing strategy with low and stable output: pacing the left bundle branch immediately beyond the conduction block.Can J Cardiol. 2017; 33: 1736.e1-1736.e3
- Permanent His-bundle pacing is feasible, safe, and superior to right ventricular pacing in routine clinical practice.Heart Rhythm. 2015; 12: 305-312
- Clinical outcomes of His bundle pacing compared to right ventricular pacing.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 71: 2319-2330
- Safety and efficacy of His-bundle pacing/left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2021; 62: 445-459
- His bundle pacing, learning curve, procedure characteristics, safety, and feasibility: insights from a large international observational study.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019; 30: 1984-1993
- Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study.Eur Heart J. 2022; 43: 4161-4173
- Long term performance and safety of His bundle pacing: a multicenter experience.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019; 30: 1594-1601
- Clinical outcomes in patients with left bundle branch area pacing vs. right ventricular pacing for atrioventricular block.Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021; 8685253
- Comparison of electrocardiogram characteristics and pacing parameters between left bundle branch pacing and right ventricular pacing in patients receiving pacemaker therapy.Europace. 2019; 21: 673-680
- Left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the international LBBAP Collaborative Study Group.JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021; 7: 135-147
- Long-term safety and feasibility of left bundle branch pacing in a large single-center study.Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2021; 14e009261
- Procedure-related complications of left bundle branch pacing: a single-center experience.Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021; 8645947
- Initial experience, safety, and feasibility of left bundle branch area pacing: a multicenter prospective study.JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020; 6: 1773-1782
- Electrophysiological characteristics of septal perforation during left bundle branch pacing.Heart Rhythm. 2022; 19: 728-734
- Left bundle branch pacing postatrioventricular junction ablation for atrial fibrillation: propensity score matching with His bundle pacing.Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2022; 15e010926
- 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy.Eur Heart J. 2021; 42: 3427-3520
- A beginner’s guide to permanent left bundle branch pacing.Heart Rhythm. 2019; 16: 1791-1796
- Rate and impact on patient outcome and healthcare utilization of complications requiring surgical revision: subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021; 32: 1712-1723
- Rate and nature of complications with leadless transcatheter pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers: results from an Italian multicentre large population analysis.Europace. 2023; 25: 112-120
- Leadless transcatheter pacemaker: indications, implantation technique and peri-procedural patient management in the Italian clinical practice.Int J Cardiol. 2022; 365: 49-56
- Incidence and predictors of infections and all-cause death in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: the Italian Nationwide RI-AIAC Registry.J Pers Med. 2022; 12: 91
- His or para-His pacing preserves left ventricular function in atrioventricular block: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study.Europace. 2014; 16: 1189-1196
- Prevention of ventricular desynchronization by permanent para-Hisian pacing after atrioventricular node ablation in chronic atrial fibrillation: a crossover, blinded, randomized study versus apical right ventricular pacing.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47: 1938-1945
- Left bundle branch area pacing is superior to right ventricular septum pacing concerning depolarization-repolarization reserve.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020; 31: 313-322
- A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing left bundle branch pacing, His bundle branch pacing, and right ventricular pacing for atrioventricular block.Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 9939850
- Safety and efficacy of left bundle branch pacing in comparison with conventional right ventricular pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine (Baltimore). 2021; 100e26560
Published online: March 09, 2023
Publication stageIn Press Journal Pre-Proof
Funding Sources: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Disclosures: The authors have no conflicts to disclose.
© 2023 Heart Rhythm Society. All rights reserved.