Clinical Interventions in Aging (Jun 2023)
Feasibility of Permanent His Bundle Pacing in the Elderly vs the Very Elderly. A Single-Center Mid-Term Follow-Up Study
Abstract
Catalin Pestrea,1– 3 Ecaterina Cicala,1 Alexandra Gherghina,1 Florin Ortan,1 Dana Pop2,3 1Department of Interventional Cardiology, Brasov County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Brasov, 500326, Romania; 2 5th Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, “Iuliu Hațieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, 400012, Romania; 3Department of Cardiology, Clinical Rehabilitation Hospital, Cluj-Napoca, 400347, RomaniaCorrespondence: Catalin Pestrea, Brasov County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Brasov, 500326, Romania, Tel +40745003637, Email [email protected]: Although feasibility studies have included older patients, specific data for His bundle pacing (HBP) in this population is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and mid-term performance of HBP in the elderly (70 to 79 years old) versus the very elderly (80 years old and above) patients with conventional indications for pacing.Patients and Methods: About 105 patients older than 70 years of age with attempted HBP from the 1st of January 2019 to the 31st of December 2021 were reviewed. Clinical and procedural characteristics were recorded at baseline, and after a mid-term follow-up period.Results: The procedural success rate was similar in both age groups (68.49% vs 65.62%). There was no significant difference in pacing or sensing thresholds, impedance, and fluoroscopy times. For both age intervals, patients with a baseline narrow QRS maintained a similar QRS duration after pacing, while in patients with a wide QRS, the paced QRS was significantly shorter. Baseline QRS duration, left bundle branch block morphology, and ejection fraction, were significantly associated with HBP procedural failure. The mean follow-up period was 830.34 days for the elderly and 722.76 days for the very elderly. After the follow-up period, both sensing and pacing thresholds were similar between the groups. Compared to the baseline values, there were no significant changes in both pacing and sensing parameters, irrespective of the age interval. During follow-up, no lead dislodgements were recorded. There were two cases of significant pacing threshold rise in the elderly (4%) and three cases in the very elderly group (14.2%) which were managed conservatively, without lead revision.Conclusion: In elderly and very elderly patients, HBP is a feasible procedure associated with constant pacing and sensing parameters and with low complication rates over mid-term follow-up.Keywords: conduction system pacing, elderly and very elderly, feasibility study, mid-term follow-up
