Aarhus University Seal

Dansk

You are here: » Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bu...

About Aarhus University

Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing leads in patients with atrioventricular block

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaper › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing leads in patients with atrioventricular block. / Frausing, Maria Hee Jung Park; Bæk, Aleksander Laust; Kristensen, Jens et al.
In: Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, 08.02.2023.

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaper › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Frausing, MHJP, Bæk, AL, Kristensen, J, Gerdes, C, Nielsen, JC & Kronborg, MB 2023, 'Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing leads in patients with atrioventricular block', Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-023-01488-x

APA

Frausing, M. H. J. P., Bæk, A. L., Kristensen, J., Gerdes, C., Nielsen, J. C., & Kronborg, M. B. (2023). Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing leads in patients with atrioventricular block. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-023-01488-x

CBE

Frausing MHJP, Bæk AL, Kristensen J, Gerdes C, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB. 2023. Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing leads in patients with atrioventricular block. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-023-01488-x

MLA

Frausing, Maria Hee Jung Park et al. "Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing leads in patients with atrioventricular block". Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-023-01488-x

Vancouver

Frausing MHJP, Bæk AL, Kristensen J, Gerdes C, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB. Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing leads in patients with atrioventricular block. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2023 Feb 8. Epub 2023 Feb 8. doi: 10.1007/s10840-023-01488-x

Author

Frausing, Maria Hee Jung Park ; Bæk, Aleksander Laust ; Kristensen, Jens et al. / Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing leads in patients with atrioventricular block. In: Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2023.

Bibtex

@article{d1a1e7c135164140a9df505dad0b1d01,
title = "Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing leads in patients with atrioventricular block",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP) is a novel treatment with limited knowledge on long-term outcome. We aimed to assess long-term safety and effectiveness of HBP in patients with atrioventricular block treated with HBP and a back-up right ventricular pacing (RVP) lead.METHODS: We included 38 patients from a completed single-center, randomized controlled cross-over trial designed to compare left ventricular (LV) function after 12 months of HBP vs. RVP conducted between September 2007 and August 2011. Lead performance beyond the 2-year study period was assessed based on a retrospective review of capture thresholds, sensing, impedance, energy consumption, and rate of HBP interruption.RESULTS: Patients were followed for a mean of 7 ± 4 years. Both at baseline and during follow-up, HBP leads displayed significantly higher capture thresholds than RVP leads (P < 0.001), multifold higher energy consumption (P < 0.001), and lower sensing amplitudes (P < 0.001). During follow-up, 17 (53%) HBP leads were deactivated or abandoned. The principal cause for HBP interruption was high pacing thresholds in patients with preserved LVEF during RVP. Device longevity was shorter than that of contemporary cohorts treated with dual-chamber pacing or CRT, and time to first device exchange was 6.8 ± 1.5 years. No lead dislodgements occurred, but four patients (10%) developed device-related infections requiring device extraction.CONCLUSION: HBP was interrupted in > 50% of patients during long-term follow-up. The principal cause was unacceptably high capture thresholds and no significant difference in LV function with HBP compared with RVP. Device longevity was shorter, and infection rates were higher than anticipated.",
keywords = "AV block, Conduction system pacing, His bundle pacing, Lead performance, Pacemaker",
author = "Frausing, {Maria Hee Jung Park} and B{\ae}k, {Aleksander Laust} and Jens Kristensen and Christian Gerdes and Nielsen, {Jens Cosedis} and Kronborg, {Mads Brix}",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.",
year = "2023",
month = feb,
day = "8",
doi = "10.1007/s10840-023-01488-x",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology",
issn = "1383-875X",
publisher = "Springer",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing leads in patients with atrioventricular block

AU - Frausing, Maria Hee Jung Park

AU - Bæk, Aleksander Laust

AU - Kristensen, Jens

AU - Gerdes, Christian

AU - Nielsen, Jens Cosedis

AU - Kronborg, Mads Brix

N1 - © 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

PY - 2023/2/8

Y1 - 2023/2/8

N2 - BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP) is a novel treatment with limited knowledge on long-term outcome. We aimed to assess long-term safety and effectiveness of HBP in patients with atrioventricular block treated with HBP and a back-up right ventricular pacing (RVP) lead.METHODS: We included 38 patients from a completed single-center, randomized controlled cross-over trial designed to compare left ventricular (LV) function after 12 months of HBP vs. RVP conducted between September 2007 and August 2011. Lead performance beyond the 2-year study period was assessed based on a retrospective review of capture thresholds, sensing, impedance, energy consumption, and rate of HBP interruption.RESULTS: Patients were followed for a mean of 7 ± 4 years. Both at baseline and during follow-up, HBP leads displayed significantly higher capture thresholds than RVP leads (P < 0.001), multifold higher energy consumption (P < 0.001), and lower sensing amplitudes (P < 0.001). During follow-up, 17 (53%) HBP leads were deactivated or abandoned. The principal cause for HBP interruption was high pacing thresholds in patients with preserved LVEF during RVP. Device longevity was shorter than that of contemporary cohorts treated with dual-chamber pacing or CRT, and time to first device exchange was 6.8 ± 1.5 years. No lead dislodgements occurred, but four patients (10%) developed device-related infections requiring device extraction.CONCLUSION: HBP was interrupted in > 50% of patients during long-term follow-up. The principal cause was unacceptably high capture thresholds and no significant difference in LV function with HBP compared with RVP. Device longevity was shorter, and infection rates were higher than anticipated.

AB - BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP) is a novel treatment with limited knowledge on long-term outcome. We aimed to assess long-term safety and effectiveness of HBP in patients with atrioventricular block treated with HBP and a back-up right ventricular pacing (RVP) lead.METHODS: We included 38 patients from a completed single-center, randomized controlled cross-over trial designed to compare left ventricular (LV) function after 12 months of HBP vs. RVP conducted between September 2007 and August 2011. Lead performance beyond the 2-year study period was assessed based on a retrospective review of capture thresholds, sensing, impedance, energy consumption, and rate of HBP interruption.RESULTS: Patients were followed for a mean of 7 ± 4 years. Both at baseline and during follow-up, HBP leads displayed significantly higher capture thresholds than RVP leads (P < 0.001), multifold higher energy consumption (P < 0.001), and lower sensing amplitudes (P < 0.001). During follow-up, 17 (53%) HBP leads were deactivated or abandoned. The principal cause for HBP interruption was high pacing thresholds in patients with preserved LVEF during RVP. Device longevity was shorter than that of contemporary cohorts treated with dual-chamber pacing or CRT, and time to first device exchange was 6.8 ± 1.5 years. No lead dislodgements occurred, but four patients (10%) developed device-related infections requiring device extraction.CONCLUSION: HBP was interrupted in > 50% of patients during long-term follow-up. The principal cause was unacceptably high capture thresholds and no significant difference in LV function with HBP compared with RVP. Device longevity was shorter, and infection rates were higher than anticipated.

KW - AV block

KW - Conduction system pacing

KW - His bundle pacing

KW - Lead performance

KW - Pacemaker

U2 - 10.1007/s10840-023-01488-x

DO - 10.1007/s10840-023-01488-x

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 36753028

JO - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

JF - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

SN - 1383-875X

ER -