PP97 Conduction System Pacing Implantation Through Electroanatomic Mapping-Guided Versus Fluoroscopy In Patients With Severe Bradyarrhythmias

Introduction Electroanatomic mapping (EAM) has been shown to be an alternative procedure to fluoroscopy for the implantation of conduction system pacing (His-bundle pacing [HBP] and left bundle branch pacing [LBBP]) in patients with severe bradyarrhythmias, mainly those vulnerable to ionizing radiation. However, the evidence of its beneficial and harmful effects has not been assessed in a systematic review (SR). Methods An SR of the available scientific literature was conducted on the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of implantation of the HBP and LBBP using EAM system versus fluoroscopy in patients with bradycardia with an indication for pacing therapy. Cochrane methodology and PRISMA statement for reporting were followed. A partial economic evaluation was carried out to compare the costs of both pacemaker implantation strategies from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. A budget impact analysis was also conducted with a five-year horizon. Results Seven comparative observational studies (N=259) analyzing the use of EAM versus fluoroscopy were selected. Statistically significant differences were observed in total fluoroscopy time: −9.87 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI]: −14.20, −5.53; p<0.01; I2=95%; k=7; n=231); His-lead fluoroscopic time: −8.08 minutes (95% CI: −10.36, −5.81; p<0.01; I2=0%; k=2; n=50); and His-lead radiation dose: −17.21 mGy (95% CI: −24.08, −10.34; p<0.01; k=1; n=20). No differences in total radiation dose, procedural success, immediate procedure-related complications, electrode revision, or device infection were found. The use of EAM represents an increase of EUR1,397.81 (USD1,513.88) per patient and a net budget impact of EUR1.63 million (USD1.77 million). Conclusions No differences between EAM and fluoroscopy in terms of procedure success and safety were found. Therefore, EAM is a valuable alternative for patients who should not be exposed to ionizing radiation. The inclusion of EAM systems, for the indication under study, in routine clinical practice would mean an increase in costs for the Spanish National Health System.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462324002617
Primary Topic
Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

PP97 Conduction System Pacing Implantation Through Electroanatomic Mapping-Guided Versus Fluoroscopy In Patients With Severe Bradyarrhythmias

Beatriz León‐Salas, Renata Linertová, Raúl Quirós López, Diego Infante‐Ventura et al.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
article

PP97 Conduction System Pacing Implantation Through Electroanatomic Mapping-Guided Versus Fluoroscopy In Patients With Severe Bradyarrhythmias

Beatriz León‐Salas, Renata Linertová, Raúl Quirós López, Diego Infante‐Ventura, Aránzazu Hernández-Yumar, Javier Garcı́a Garcı́a, Eduardo Ramos, María M. Trujillo‐Martín
article en

Abstract

Introduction Electroanatomic mapping (EAM) has been shown to be an alternative procedure to fluoroscopy for the implantation of conduction system pacing (His-bundle pacing [HBP] and left bundle branch pacing [LBBP]) in patients with severe bradyarrhythmias, mainly those vulnerable to ionizing radiation. However, the evidence of its beneficial and harmful effects has not been assessed in a systematic review (SR). Methods An SR of the available scientific literature was conducted on the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of implantation of the HBP and LBBP using EAM system versus fluoroscopy in patients with bradycardia with an indication for pacing therapy. Cochrane methodology and PRISMA statement for reporting were followed. A partial economic evaluation was carried out to compare the costs of both pacemaker implantation strategies from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. A budget impact analysis was also conducted with a five-year horizon. Results Seven comparative observational studies (N=259) analyzing the use of EAM versus fluoroscopy were selected. Statistically significant differences were observed in total fluoroscopy time: −9.87 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI]: −14.20, −5.53; p<0.01; I2=95%; k=7; n=231); His-lead fluoroscopic time: −8.08 minutes (95% CI: −10.36, −5.81; p<0.01; I2=0%; k=2; n=50); and His-lead radiation dose: −17.21 mGy (95% CI: −24.08, −10.34; p<0.01; k=1; n=20). No differences in total radiation dose, procedural success, immediate procedure-related complications, electrode revision, or device infection were found. The use of EAM represents an increase of EUR1,397.81 (USD1,513.88) per patient and a net budget impact of EUR1.63 million (USD1.77 million). Conclusions No differences between EAM and fluoroscopy in terms of procedure success and safety were found. Therefore, EAM is a valuable alternative for patients who should not be exposed to ionizing radiation. The inclusion of EAM systems, for the indication under study, in routine clinical practice would mean an increase in costs for the Spanish National Health System.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareVol. 40(S1)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.