Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

No pain, no gain: intraprocedural myocardial injury current and conduction system pacing lead performance

No pain, no gain: intraprocedural myocardial injury current and conduction system pacing lead... Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-023-01485-0 COMMENTAR Y No pain, no gain: intraprocedural myocardial injury current and conduction system pacing lead performance Alexander C. Perino Received: 3 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023 His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pac- 94 consecutive patients who received CSP leads (HBP: 43 ing (LBBAP) have emerged as two approaches to pace the patients; LBAAP: 51 patients) were compared to 88 historic conduction system [1, 2], with mounting evidence that con- controls who received right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) duction system pacing (CSP) avoids the deleterious effects prior to the introduction of CSP. Top-level findings from this of right ventricular myocardial pacing [3]. Additionally, CSP investigation include: can leverage patients’ dormant bundles and fascicles for car- diac resynchronization, with potential advantages over tra- 1. HBP leads were the least likely to cause myocardial ditional biventricular pacing [4]. However, implanting CSP injury current (HBP: 48%, LBBAP: 76%, RVSP 67%; leads with existing tools and techniques can be challenging P = 0.005, P = 0.045). HBP vs. LBBAP HBP vs. RVSP and is not always feasible even for experienced http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology Springer Journals

No pain, no gain: intraprocedural myocardial injury current and conduction system pacing lead performance

Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/no-pain-no-gain-intraprocedural-myocardial-injury-current-and-8drkDb4i12

References (10)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023
ISSN
1383-875X
eISSN
1572-8595
DOI
10.1007/s10840-023-01485-0
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-023-01485-0 COMMENTAR Y No pain, no gain: intraprocedural myocardial injury current and conduction system pacing lead performance Alexander C. Perino Received: 3 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023 His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pac- 94 consecutive patients who received CSP leads (HBP: 43 ing (LBBAP) have emerged as two approaches to pace the patients; LBAAP: 51 patients) were compared to 88 historic conduction system [1, 2], with mounting evidence that con- controls who received right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) duction system pacing (CSP) avoids the deleterious effects prior to the introduction of CSP. Top-level findings from this of right ventricular myocardial pacing [3]. Additionally, CSP investigation include: can leverage patients’ dormant bundles and fascicles for car- diac resynchronization, with potential advantages over tra- 1. HBP leads were the least likely to cause myocardial ditional biventricular pacing [4]. However, implanting CSP injury current (HBP: 48%, LBBAP: 76%, RVSP 67%; leads with existing tools and techniques can be challenging P = 0.005, P = 0.045). HBP vs. LBBAP HBP vs. RVSP and is not always feasible even for experienced

Journal

Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology – Springer Journals

Published: Sep 1, 2023

There are no references for this article.