Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This trial seeks to evaluate the performance of the extendable helix, stylet-driven pacing lead (SDL) compared to the fixed helix, lumenless pacing lead (LLL) during left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), with respect to enduring left bundle branch capture on follow-up, incidence of acute lead failure, pacing characteristics including QRS duration, pacing thresholds, R-wave amplitudes and lead impedance, and finally, safety profile during LBBP implantation. These data will guide future lead selection during LBBP implantation in achieving improved procedural success and optimal lead performance.
This study is a single-blind, randomised controlled trial, aimed at evaluating the performance of the extendable helix, stylet driven pacing lead (SDL) compared to the fixed helix, lumenless pacing lead (LLL) during left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). The study is a multicentre study across 3 major hospitals in Singapore, and LBBP performed by independent electrophysiologists experienced in performing LBBP.
The primary objective of the study is to determine differences in incidence of loss of left bundle capture by pacing lead design (LLL vs SDL). The secondary objectives are to determine if lead design affects frequency of lead failure during implantation, investigate differences in short- and medium-term LBBP parameters on follow-up by lead design, and evaluate differences in safety profile between LLL and SDL in LBBP.
This study aims to recruit a target of 210 patients. A previous retrospective study found a loss of LB capture rate of 9% with LLL and 25% with SDL. A sample size of 170 will be required for a type-1 error rate of 5% and power of 80%. Accounting for a dropout rate of 20%, a total of 210 patients will be recruited (105 per group). Eligible subjects will be randomised to either the LLL or the SDL arm. The randomisation list will be generated with a computer-generated sequence in permuted blocks of 4, stratified by centre, to ensure a final allocation ratio of 1:1.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed helix, lumenless pacing lead (FHL) | Active Comparator | Lumenless leads used are fixed helix pacing leads (SelectSecure 3830 pacing lead from Medtronic) during the LBBP procedure. |
|
| Extendable helix, stylet-driven leads (EHL) | Active Comparator | Stylet-driven leads used are extendable helix pacing leads (Biotronik Solia S60 lead from Biotronik or Tendril STS pacing lead from St. Jude Medical) during the LBBP procedure. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed helix, lumenless pacing lead. | Device | Patients will be randomised to the fixed helix, lumenless pacing lead design during LBBP implantation. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Incidence of loss of left bundle branch capture | Loss of LBB capture is defined as the absence of the terminal r/R' complex in V1 during initial threshold interrogations at high pacing outputs and the absence of transitions in paced QRS morphology with decreasing pacing outputs until loss of myocardial capture. | 12 months |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Incidence of acute lead failure | Acute lead failure is defined as defined as structural damage to the pacing lead during implant necessitating the use of a new pacing lead. | 12 months |
| Serial changes in pacing thresholds (V) |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Fulfil current indications for pacemaker therapy according to international guideline recommendations:
Age ≥21 years old
Able to provide informed consent
Planned LBBP implantation
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Eugene Tan, MBBS | NUHS | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National University Heart Centre Singapore | Singapore | Singapore |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
A target of 210 participants will be enrolled in this study consisting of two groups and randomised in a 1:1 fashion to either of two groups.
Group 1: Fixed helix, lumenless pacing lead (FHL) Group 2: Extendable helix, stylet driven pacing lead (EHL)
Not provided
Not provided
Subjects will be blinded to the type of pacing lead received. Operators will not be blinded as they will be performing the procedure. Post-procedure, investigators and outcomes assessors will be blinded to the treatment arm during adjudication of outcomes.
| Extendable helix, stylet-driven pacing lead. | Device | Patients will be randomised to the extendable helix, stylet-driven pacing lead design during LBBP implantation. |
|
To compare the differences in pacing thresholds (V) at implant and at 12 months after LBBP implant.
| 12 months |
| Serial changes in R-wave amplitude (mV) | To compare the differences in R-wave amplitude (mV) at implant and at 12 months after LBBP implant. | 12 months |
| Serial changes in lead impedance (ohm) | To compare the differences in lead impedance (ohm) at implant and at 12 months after LBBP implant. | 12 months |
| Serial changes in QRS duration (ms) | To compare the differences in QRS duration (ms) at implant and at 12 months after LBBP implant. | 12 months |
| Incidence of peri-procedural complications | Complications intraprocedurally and on follow-up will be evaluated, including lead dislodgement, lead fracture during implant, septal perforation, septal vein/arterial injury, pneumothorax, pericardial effusion, wound/pacemaker infection. | 12 months |