Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Safety and Feasibility of AutoCaptureTM Pacing System in Patients undergoing LBBAP
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Background
The AutoCapture™ Pacing algorithm enhances safety and enables remote monitoring in conventional pacing; however, its application for permanent His bundle pacing has been limited. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel technique, and there is limited data on the application of the AutoCapture algorithm.
Methods
The prospective cohort at our University Hospital, South Korea, included all patients underwent LBBAP from 2022 to 2023. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether the AutoCapture algorithm was activated, with follow-ups every 3–6 months to evaluate clinical adverse events, including mortality, hospitalization, syncope, and loss of capture.
Results
A total of 97 patients (39 men, 75.2 ± 11.2 years) were divided into AutoCapture (n=47) and Manual (n=50) groups. R-wave amplitudes, pacing thresholds, and impedance values were similar between the groups. Over a 12 months period, LBBAP thresholds remained stable, and no adverse events were observed in the AutoCapture group. One patient in the Manual group experienced syncope due to capture loss caused by retraction of helix. Pacing output was significantly lower in the AutoCapture group (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 2.00 ± 0.51, p < 0.001), enabling selective LBBAP.
Conclusion
The AutoCapture algorithm is safe and feasible for patients undergoing LBBAP, enabling lower pacing output and selective LBBAP.Scheme of the study protocol Representative case
Title: Safety and Feasibility of AutoCaptureTM Pacing System in Patients undergoing LBBAP
Description:
Abstract
Background
The AutoCapture™ Pacing algorithm enhances safety and enables remote monitoring in conventional pacing; however, its application for permanent His bundle pacing has been limited.
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel technique, and there is limited data on the application of the AutoCapture algorithm.
Methods
The prospective cohort at our University Hospital, South Korea, included all patients underwent LBBAP from 2022 to 2023.
Patients were divided into two groups based on whether the AutoCapture algorithm was activated, with follow-ups every 3–6 months to evaluate clinical adverse events, including mortality, hospitalization, syncope, and loss of capture.
Results
A total of 97 patients (39 men, 75.
2 ± 11.
2 years) were divided into AutoCapture (n=47) and Manual (n=50) groups.
R-wave amplitudes, pacing thresholds, and impedance values were similar between the groups.
Over a 12 months period, LBBAP thresholds remained stable, and no adverse events were observed in the AutoCapture group.
One patient in the Manual group experienced syncope due to capture loss caused by retraction of helix.
Pacing output was significantly lower in the AutoCapture group (1.
1 ± 0.
3 vs.
2.
00 ± 0.
51, p < 0.
001), enabling selective LBBAP.
Conclusion
The AutoCapture algorithm is safe and feasible for patients undergoing LBBAP, enabling lower pacing output and selective LBBAP.
Scheme of the study protocol Representative case.
Related Results
Comparison of Clinical Complications Between LBBAP and Traditional RVP in Long-Term Follow-Up
Comparison of Clinical Complications Between LBBAP and Traditional RVP in Long-Term Follow-Up
Background. Traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) can lead to asynchronous cardiac mechanical contractions and increase the risk of adverse cardiac events. This study aimed to...
Efficacy of Closed Loop Stimulation in Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing
Efficacy of Closed Loop Stimulation in Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing
Abstract
Background:
Closed-Loop Stimulation (CLS) adjusts pacing rate based on beat-to-beat impedance changes reflecting myoca...
e0650 The effects of biventricular synchronous pacing on CBF, MVO2 and CWE in dogs
e0650 The effects of biventricular synchronous pacing on CBF, MVO2 and CWE in dogs
Objective
To compare the effects of biventricular synchronous pacing with different pacing site on coronary Blood flow (CBF), myocardial oxygen consumption (MVO2)...
Assessing modified chest leads as a substitute for electrophysiological systems in left bundle branch area pacing
Assessing modified chest leads as a substitute for electrophysiological systems in left bundle branch area pacing
Abstract
Background
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) typically requires an electrophysiological (EP) system. Howeve...
Conduction system pacing in a pediatric population: a case series
Conduction system pacing in a pediatric population: a case series
Background:
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) offers
physiological pacing with potential advantages over right ventricular
(RV) pacing, particularly in child...
Abstract 18037: Left Bundle Branch Area versus Biventricular Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract 18037: Left Bundle Branch Area versus Biventricular Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Introduction:
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) through biventricular pacing (BVP) is the standard treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFr...
A Single Center Experience with Early Adoption of Physiologic Pacing Approaches
A Single Center Experience with Early Adoption of Physiologic Pacing Approaches
Background: Increasing interest in physiological pacing has been
countered with challenges such as accurate lead deployment and
increasing pacing thresholds with His-bundle pacing ...
Safety Assessment of Coronary Arteries During Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing
Safety Assessment of Coronary Arteries During Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing
Objective:
This study aimed to investigate the relationship
between the location of implantation of the Left Bundle Branch Area
Pacing (LBBAP) electrode and the c...

