Conduction system pacing evolution – a single centre experience

    Authors

    Keywords

    conduction system pacing, His-bundle pacing, left bundle branch area pacing

    DOI

    https://doi.org/10.15836/ccar2022.175

    Full Text

    Until recently, right ventricular apical electrode placement was predominantly used during bradycardia pacing management. Decades of clinical practice have taught us that a high burden of pacing in right apical position can deteriorate left ventricle function leading to increased mortality and morbidity. In the last few years, our daily clinical practice has fundamentally changed after the introduction of so-called conduction system pacing (His-bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing area). The idea that the natural pacing of the heart prevents the aforementioned undesirable effects of ‘’classical’’ way of pacing, while maintaining the effectiveness, has led to a revolution in the treatment of such patients. The growing evidence indicate that conduction system pacing has the potential to become preferred pacing mode in various clinical indications, including the treatment of dyssynchrony in setting of heart failure. (1) We will present the results of our single center experience regarding conduction system pacing.

    Literature

    1. Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, Greenspon AJ, Freedman RA, Lee KL, et al. MOde Selection Trial Investigators. Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation. 2003 June 17;107(23):2932–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000072769.17295.B1
    Cardiologia Croatica
    Back to search

    Conduction system pacing evolution – a single centre experience

    Extended Abstract
    Issue9-10
    Published
    Pages175
    PDF via DOIhttps://doi.org/10.15836/ccar2022.175
    conduction system pacing
    His-bundle pacing
    left bundle branch area pacing

    Authors

    Kristijan Đula*ORCIDSestre Milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Zagreb, Croatia
    Ivan ZeljkovićORCIDSestre Milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Zagreb, Croatia
    Vjekoslav RadeljićORCIDSestre Milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Zagreb, Croatia
    Siniša CarORCIDSestre Milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Zagreb, Croatia
    Mislav NedićORCIDSestre Milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Zagreb, Croatia
    Nikola BuljORCIDSestre Milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Zagreb, Croatia
    Diana Delić-BrkljačićORCIDSestre Milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Zagreb, Croatia

    *Correspondence email: kristijandula@gmail.com

    Full Text

    Until recently, right ventricular apical electrode placement was predominantly used during bradycardia pacing management. Decades of clinical practice have taught us that a high burden of pacing in right apical position can deteriorate left ventricle function leading to increased mortality and morbidity. In the last few years, our daily clinical practice has fundamentally changed after the introduction of so-called conduction system pacing (His-bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing area). The idea that the natural pacing of the heart prevents the aforementioned undesirable effects of ‘’classical’’ way of pacing, while maintaining the effectiveness, has led to a revolution in the treatment of such patients. The growing evidence indicate that conduction system pacing has the potential to become preferred pacing mode in various clinical indications, including the treatment of dyssynchrony in setting of heart failure. (1) We will present the results of our single center experience regarding conduction system pacing.

    Literature

    1. 1.
      Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, Greenspon AJ, Freedman RA, Lee KL, et al. MOde Selection Trial Investigators. Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation. 2003 June 17;107(23):2932–7.DOI