ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Adoption of left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven lead in a tertiary academic training center: Learning curve and acute procedural outcomes.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of a Dual-Lead Technique on Procedural Success of Left Bundle Branch Pacing.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently emerged as a strategy for conduction system pacing. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the initial learning experience and acute procedural success in adopting this procedure in an academic training center. Methods: A retrospective review of LBBAP procedures using the Biotronik Solia stylet-driven lead from June 2022 to December 2023 was performed. Procedural and fluoroscopy times with electrocardiographic and pacing parameters were evaluated to determine safety and acute procedural outcomes. Results: A total of 69 patients (mean age 75 ± 12 years; 60.9% male) underwent LBBAP implantation over 18 months for standard pacing indications by 10 implanters (including 7 fellows-in-training) without previous experience in LBBAP technique. Mean total procedural time was 74.1 ± 23.5 minutes, and mean fluoroscopy time for LBBAP lead insertion was 9.3 ± 5.4 minutes. Mean paced QRS duration was 115.2 ± 15.5 ms, and mean left ventricular activation time was 79.4 ± 14.5 ms. An rsR' pattern was achieved in 76.8%. LBBAP was successful in 78.3% (overall 43.5% single deployment; median 2 [interquartile range 1-3]) with excellent LBBAP lead parameters: threshold 0.8 ± 0.4 V at 0.4 ms; sensing 9.4 ± 4.2 mV; impedance 627 ± 131 Ω. Acute procedural complications included damaged lead helix requiring a second lead (4.3%), pneumothorax (2.9%), and acute LBBAP lead dislodgment (1.4%). Septal perforation occurred in 10.1% of cases with no acute sequelae. When analyzed in tertiles, the number of lead deployment attempts was significantly reduced with no changes to procedural success rates with increasing experience. Conclusion: Adoption of LBBAP with stylet-driven lead in an academic training center is feasible and safe, with satisfactory success rates and no overly steep learning curve.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.