Clinical Features and Outcomes of Long-Term Lead Performance by Left Bundle Branch Pacing.

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an emerging physiological pacing technique that expanded in recent reports. The long-term safety and feasibility of LBBP lack adequate evaluation.The study aimed to evaluate the long-term lead performance and clinical outcomes of LBBP.We retrospectively enrolled 123 consecutive patients scheduled for LBBP implantation from January to December 2018. The pacing parameters, electrocardiograms, echocardiographic measurements, and complications associated with LBBP were tracked at implant and follow-up.LBBP was successfully performed in 110 of 123 (89.4%) patients. Left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDd) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved from baseline in patients with reduced LVEF (n = 29; LVEDd, 55.6 ± 8.1 mm versus 63.4 ± 4.9 mm, P < 0.001; LVEF, 51.6% ± 13.6% versus 33.7% ± 5.5%, P < 0.001) while no significant change was found in patients with preserved LVEF (n = 81; LVEDd, 49.6 ± 12.0 mm versus 51.2 ± 6.0 mm, P = 0.38; LVEF, 65.8% ± 7.9% versus 65.8% ± 7.3%, P = 0.99). In seven patients, LBBP lead protuberance into the LV cavity was observed, with a mean distance between the screw tip and the LV septum of 3.0 ± 0.8 mm (range from 1.8 to 3.9 mm). The LBBP parameters remained stable.LBBP is a novel physiological, safe, and effective pacing technique for patients with atrioventricular block. Lower BMI, diabetes and thinner interventricular septum (IVS) thickness are associated with mechanical complications.

Permanent left bundle branch area pacing improves mitral regurgitation and cardiac function in patients with right bundle branch block.

BACKGROUND: Permanent left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been established as an effective means to correct left bundle branch block. Right bundle branch block (RBBB), emerge as a distinct form of cardiac conduction abnormality, can be seen in the context of LBBAP procedure. However, the correction potential of LBBAP in patients with RBBB remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of permanent LBBAP in patients with RBBB. METHODS: Ninety-two consecutive patients who underwent successful permanent LBBAP were recruited from May. 2019 to Dec. 2022 in Fuwai Central China Cardiovascular Hospital. Among them, 20 patients with RBBB were included in our analysis. These patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-LBBAP. The QRS duration (QRSd) on the V1 lead of the 12-lead elctrocardiogram was measured and compared before and after the LBBAP procedure. Additionally, mitral regurgitation, tricuspid regurgitation and cardiac function were assessed using transthoracic echocardiography, specifically focusing on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and mitral regurgitation severity. The acute pitfills and delayed complications associated with the LBBAP procedure were recorded to evaluate its safety. SPSS 23.0 was used to perform statistical analysis with Student's t test or one way ANOVA or nonparametric tests (paired Wilcoxon test). A p value less than 0.05 was defined as significant. RESULTS: The demographic breakdown of the RBBB cohort revealed a mean age of 66.35 ± 11.55 years, 60% being male. Comorbidities were prevalent, including severe atrioventricular block (AVB) in 75%, sick sinus syndrome (SSS) in 20%, heart failure in 25%, atrial fibrillation in 30%, coronary heart diseases in 45%, hypertension in 35%, and diabetes mellitus in 15%. Regarding the LBBAP procedure, the average operation time was 106.53 ± 2.72 min, with 45% of patients (9 individuals) requiring temporary cardiac pacing during the surgery. Notably, the LBBAP procedure significantly narrow the QRS duration in RBBB patients, from 132.60 ± 31.49ms to 119.55 ± 18.58 ms (P = 0.046). Additionally, at the 12-month follow-up, we observed a marked improvement in LVEF, which increased significantly from 55.15 ± 10.84% to 58.5 ± 10.55% (P = 0.018). Furthermore, mitral regurgitation severity improved, with a median reduction from 4.46 (0.9, 7.3) to 2.29 (0, 3.49) cm2 (P = 0.033). Importantly, no cases of ventricular septum perforation or pericardial effusion were reported during the LBBAP procedure or during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: LBBAP provides an immediate reduction in QRS duration for patients suffering from RBBB, accompanied by improvements in mitral regurgitation and cardiac function as evident in the 12-month follow-up period.

Extraction of lumenless pacing leads from the His bundle and left bundle branch area: outcomes of the high-volume centre.

AIMS: The application of conduction system pacing (CSP) in clinical practice is growing, and the need for lead extraction will also increase. The data on outcomes and safety of CSP lead extraction are limited. The aim of this study was to assess procedural outcomes and safety of CSP lead removal. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-seven patients from the EXTRACT Registry with the indication for CSP lead removal were enrolled in the study conducted at the Department of Electrocardiology in Katowice, Poland. Extraction technique, outcomes, safety, and complication were evaluated. Forty-three (91.5%) leads were successfully removed, and 41 (87.2%) were removed with traction only. The dwelling time of 28 extracted leads was longer than 1 year, and the oldest extracted lead was implanted for 89 months. Seven (14.9%) leads were removed from the left bundle branch (LBB) area and 36 from the His bundle (HB). Transient complete atrioventricular block occurred during the procedure in two patients. In 27 out of 31 attempts (87.1%), new CSP leads were implanted: nine (33.3%) HB pacing leads and 18 (66.7%) LBB area pacing leads. CONCLUSION: The CSP lead extraction is safe and feasible with a low complication rate and high rate of CSP lead reimplantation.

Observational study of left bundle branch area pacing: implantation of the solia S lead using the selectra 3D sheath at an inclined angle.

BACKGROUND: Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBaP) is a cardiac pacing technique designed to mimic the natural conduction system of the heart. Traditional right ventricular apical pacing has been associated with increased risks of heart failure and atrial fibrillation. This study investigates the stability and safety of LBBaP using the Selectra 3D sheath (Biotronik) with an inclined angle for implanting the Solia S lead (Biotronik, SE & Co, KG). METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted on 25 patients who underwent LBBaP implantation using the Selectra 3D sheath at our hospital. The procedure involved inserting the Solia S lead into the interventricular septum at an inclined angle. Surgical and postoperative data were collected, including the success rate, depth and angle of electrode insertion, complications, and follow-up data. RESULTS: The success rate of LBBaP implantation was 92%. The length of electrode insertion into the interventricular septum ranged from 12 to 23.0 mm, with an average of 18.1 ± 3.08 mm. The angle formed between the electrode and the septum ranged from 0° to 57.3°, with an average of 35.14°±14.31°. During the 3-month follow-up period, pacing parameters remained stable, and no complications were reported. CONCLUSIONS: LBBaP implantation using the Selectra 3D sheath with an inclined angle for the Solia S implantation demonstrates stability and safety. The procedure boasts a high success rate and offers an effective option for LBBaP implantation.

The impact of His bundle location and direction on the efficacy and safety of ablation.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the His bundle location and distance from the ablation site on ablation efficacy and complication risk remains unexplored. We determined the correlation between age, height, body mass index (BMI), and the His bundle location, and whether the distance between the His bundle and ablation target (DHIS-ABL) affects ablation safety and efficacy. METHODS: Overall, 346 patients with atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT) and 96 with atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia (AVRT) were retrospectively analyzed. The distance between the His bundle and the coronary sinus ostium (DHis-CS), the height of the His bundle (HHIS), and DHIS-ABL were measured. Electrocardiograms were obtained 3 months post-ablation to assess recurrence and complications. RESULTS: Multiple linear regression showed that HHIS was negatively correlated with age in both groups. In AVNRT patients, DHIS-ABL was associated with age, height, and BMI; DHIS-CS was only negatively correlated with age. In AVRT patients, there was no significant correlation between the DHIS-ABL and age, height, or BMI. The recurrence rates in the AVNRT and AVRT groups were 0.9% and 8.7%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with DHIS-ABL ≤ 10 mm had a higher recurrence rate than those with DHIS-ABL > 10 mm (p = .013). The incidence of third-degree atrioventricular block (AVB) complications was 0.2%. CONCLUSIONS: HHIS was negatively correlated with age but not with height and BMI. The DHIS-ABL correlated with age, height, and BMI in AVNRT patients. A short DHIS-ABL led to a higher rate of supraventricular tachycardia recurrence; whether this affects AVB risk warrants further studies with larger sample sizes.

His bundle pacing versus left bundle branch area pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation: A prospective and comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Pacemaker implantation combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) is a well-established strategy for uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias. Limited data are available regarding His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in this setting. AIM: To compare the outcomes of HBP and LBBAP in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation combined with AVN in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We prospectively included all patients who underwent AVNA after successful conduction system pacing (CSP) in two hospitals between September 2017 and May 2023. The primary outcome was the 1-year composite of first episode of heart failure hospitalization, symptomatic atrioventricular node reconduction requiring a second AVNA procedure, lead revision or death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients underwent AVNA following successful CSP (68 HBP and 96 LBBAP). Mean pacemaker implantation and AVNA procedure times were shorter in the LBBAP group than the HBP group (46±18 vs 59±23min; P<0.001 and 31±12 vs 43±22min, respectively; P<0.001). Complete atrioventricular block was more frequently obtained in the LBBAP group (88/96 patients [92%] vs 54/68 patients [79%]; P=0.04). One-year freedom from the composite outcome was more frequent in the LBBAP group (89.7% vs 72.9%; hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.72; P=0.01). The strategy was similarly effective in both groups with a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction. A secondary pacing threshold elevation >1V occurred only in the HBP group (11%). CONCLUSION: In this prospective, comparative study, LBBAP provided better 1-year outcomes than HBP.

Feasibility, safety, and short-term follow-up of defibrillator lead at left bundle branch area pacing location: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been increasingly adopted as an alternative modality to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The feasibility and safety of using an LBBAP lead to provide sensing of ventricular arrhythmia in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with CRT has been demonstrated recently. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to analyze the feasibility, safety, and short-term follow-up of a traditional defibrillator lead at the LBBAP location. METHODS: Patients who underwent successful LBBAP defibrillator using DF-1/DF-4 lead and delivery catheter were included in the study. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was performed after implantation to assess the ability of the LBBAP defibrillator lead to sense and provide appropriate therapy for ventricular arrhythmia. RESULTS: Although the ICD lead could be successfully deployed in the left bundle branch area in 7 of 8 patients, it was repositioned to the right ventricular (RV) apex because of atrial oversensing in 1 patient and cheesy septum in another patient. Acute procedural success was 62.5% (5/8 patients). Mean patient age was 62.6 ± 21.6 years. Mean procedural duration was 115.6 ± 38.1 minutes, with LBBAP defibrillator lead fluoroscopy duration of 10.6 ± 3.5 minutes. Mean capture threshold was 0.58 ± 0.23V/0.4 ms, sensed R-wave amplitude 9.6 ± 2.2 mV, pacing impedance 560 ± 145 Ω, and shock impedance 65.4 ± 5.5 Ω. Defibrillation testing was successful in inducing ventricular fibrillation and could be sensed and reverted promptly by the shock delivered through the lead. During mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 2.2 months, pacing parameters remained stable. No episodes of inappropriate arrhythmia detection or therapy delivery occurred during follow-up. CONCLUSION: LBBAP defibrillator is feasible, safe, and effective during short-term follow-up. DFT testing at the time of implantation will help to ensure appropriate sensing and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias.

Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). RECENT FINDINGS: Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

Early Experience of Left Bundle Branch Pacing with Lumenless Lead in a Single Center: A Case Series.

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been subject to increasing interest over the last few years due to its capacity for physiological conduction and its advantages compared to His bundle pacing. His bundle pacing has certain limitations, such as a small pacing area for the His bundle, a high threshold that leads to battery depletion, a low R-wave amplitude that may result in atrial or His oversensing, and ventricular signal undersensing. In this case series, four patients (two female and two male) aged 62.2 ± 8.4 years old with symptomatic sick sinus disease and no scar tissue in the interventricular septum underwent LBBP. All LBBPs were done with standard LBBP using a lumenless SelectSecure 3830 lead (Medtronic®, Minneapolis, USA) with a fixed helix. The lead parameters showed a good R-wave amplitudes (13 ± 7.4 mV) and a low threshold  (0.77 ± 0.17 V @ 0.4 ms). All patients were discharged on the next day. During follow-up period of 13.3 ± 12.9 months, all patients were well and no complications were noted. In conclusion, LBBP may be as an alternative of novel conduction pacing techniques and can be done relatively easy and safe, even with limited experience center.

Impact of Pulsed Electric Field Ablation on His Bundle Conduction: A Preclinical Canine Study.

BACKGROUND Pulsed field ablation (PFA), as a non-thermal ablation modality, has received increasing attention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of PFA upon His bundle via its implementation with different voltages on the maximum His bundle potential in canines, providing scientific basis for clinical application. MATERIAL AND METHODS Pulsed electrical field energy was delivered from a ablation catheter to the maximum His potential of 7 dogs, followed by a series of electrogram and histology assessments. RESULTS The baseline AH and HV intervals were 55.3±3.7 ms (range, 53.0-59.0 ms), and 34.9±1.3 ms (range, 34.0-36.0 ms), respectively, which were elevated to 65.0±5.4 ms (range, 59.0-70.0 ms) and 35.7±2.7 ms (range, 34.0-37.0 ms) after PFA. Before ablation and immediately after the recovery of third-degree AVB, the AH interval was prolonged (P<0.05) while the HV interval remained unchanged (P>0.05). After ablation, all 7 canines experienced transient third-degree AVB, with a voltage-dependent duration. Masson staining results revealed no apparent damage in His bundle cells. CONCLUSIONS Within a certain voltage range of pulse electric field, ablation of the maximum His potential in canines can result in transient third-degree AVB, providing a new route for guiding safe ablation of para-Hisian arrhythmia.

Retrograde Conduction in Left Bundle Branch Block: Insights From Left Bundle Branch Pacing.

BACKGROUND: Biventricular pacing is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure (HF), left bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the retrograde conduction properties of the left bundle branch in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB during LBBP and its clinical implications. METHODS: Patients undergoing successful LBBP for nonischemic cardiomyopathy with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and LBBB were included. Continuous recording of His potential was performed using a quadripolar catheter. Unidirectional block was defined as retrograde His bundle activation during LBBP with stimulus to His potential (SH) duration less than or equal to antegrade HV interval and bidirectional block as VH dissociation or SH duration greater than HV interval. HF hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were documented. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were included. The mean follow-up duration was 21.8 ± 13.1 months. Bidirectional block (group I) was observed in 82% (n = 136), and these patients were noted to have advanced HF stage and prolonged baseline QRS duration. Unidirectional block (group II) with intact retrograde conduction was observed in 18% (n = 29) and was associated with narrow paced QRS duration and higher LVEF during follow-up. Super-response (LVEF ≥50%) was observed in 54.4% (n = 74) in group I compared with 73.3% (n = 22) in group II (P = 0.03). The OR for LVEF normalization was 4.1 (95% CI: 1.26-13.97; P = 0.02), with unidirectional block compared with bidirectional block in patients with LBBB and LV dysfunction. Adverse clinical outcomes as measured by a composite of HF hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were significantly higher in group I compared with group II (12.5% vs 0%; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Bidirectional block in LBBB was characterized by advanced HF symptoms, while unidirectional block was associated with better clinical outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy by LBBP.

Mid-term performance of His bundle pacing and usefulness of backup leads.

Ventricular backup leads may be considered in selected patients with His bundle pacing (HBP), but it remains unknown to what extent this is useful. A total of 184 HBP patients were studied. At last follow-up, 147 (79.9%) patients retained His bundle capture at programmed output. His bundle pacing lead revision was performed in 5/36 (13.9%) patients without a backup lead and in 3/148 (2.0%) patients with a backup lead (P = 0.008). One patient without a backup lead had syncope due to atrial oversensing. Thus, implantation of ventricular backup leads may avoid lead revision and adverse events in selected HBP patients.

A His bundle pacing protocol for suppressing ventricular arrhythmia maintenance and improving defibrillation efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The excitable gap (EG), defined as the excitable tissue between two subsequent wavefronts of depolarization, is critical for maintaining reentry that underlies deadly ventricular arrhythmias. EG in the His-Purkinje Network (HPN) plays an important role in the maintenance of electrical wave reentry that underlies these arrhythmias. OBJECTIVE: To determine if rapid His bundle pacing (HBP) during reentry reduces the amount of EG in the HPN and ventricular myocardium to suppress reentry maintenance and/or improve defibrillation efficacy. METHODS: In a virtual human biventricular model, reentry was initiated with rapid line pacing followed by HBP delivered for 3, 6, or 9 s at pacing cycle lengths (PCLs) ranging from 10 to 300 ms (n=30). EG was calculated independently for the HPN and myocardium over each PCL. Defibrillation efficacy was assessed for each PCL by stimulating myocardial surface EG with delays ranging from 0.25 to 9 s (increments of 0.25 s, n=36) after the start of HBP. Defibrillation was successful if reentry terminated within 1 s after EG stimulation. This defibrillation protocol was repeated without HBP. To test the approach under different pathological conditions, all protocols were repeated in the model with right (RBBB) or left (LBBB) bundle branch block. RESULTS: Compared to without pacing, HBP for >3 seconds reduced average EG in the HPN and myocardium across a broad range of PCLs for the default, RBBB, and LBBB models. HBP >6 seconds terminated reentrant arrhythmia by converting HPN activation to a sinus rhythm behavior in the default (6/30 PCLs) and RBBB (7/30 PCLs) models. Myocardial EG stimulation during HBP increased the number of successful defibrillation attempts by 3%-19% for 30/30 PCLs in the default model, 3%-6% for 14/30 PCLs in the RBBB model, and 3%-11% for 27/30 PCLs in the LBBB model. CONCLUSION: HBP can reduce the amount of excitable gap and suppress reentry maintenance in the HPN and myocardium. HBP can also improve the efficacy of low-energy defibrillation approaches targeting excitable myocardium. HBP during reentrant arrhythmias is a promising anti-arrhythmic and defibrillation strategy.

Conduction latency in left bundle branch pacing in heart failure patient.

Since the introduction of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), a search for precise parameters confirming successful capture of conduction system was conducted. Most of the proposed electrocardiographic criteria refer to patients with narrow QRS complexes. We present a patient with heart failure in whom cardiac resynchronization was achieved using conduction system pacing. While measuring left ventricular activation time, an isoelectric interval of 74 ms between stimulus and R-wave appeared resulting in prolongation of V6 RWPT to 124 ms. Considering the immediate narrowing of QRS complexes following LBBP, the observed latency most probably reflects prolonged conduction time through the His-Purkinje system.

Result of the left bundle branch area pacing data collection registry, an international multicenter study of conduction system pacing with a Tendril STS 2088 stylet-driven lead.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area (LBBA) pacing (LBBAP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option in patients indicated for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of LBBAP in patients implanted with a Tendril 2088 stylet-driven lead. METHODS: The international retrospective data collection registry included 11 sites from 5 countries globally. Patients with attempted implants of the Tendril lead in the LBBA were followed for at least 6 months post the implant attempt. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints were freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious adverse events and the composite of LBBA capture threshold of ≤2.0 V and R-wave amplitudes ≥5 mV (or ≥value at implant), respectively. RESULTS: Of 221 patients with attempted implants of the Tendril 2088 lead in the LBBA, 91.4% (202/221) had successful implants for LBBAP. Regardless of the LBBAP implant success, all patients were followed for at least 6 months (8.7 ± 7.3 months). Baseline characteristics: 44% female, 84% ≥65 years old, 34% coronary artery disease, and 86% of primary indications for pacemaker implant. Both primary safety and effectiveness endpoints were met (freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious adverse device effects of 99.5% and electrical performance composite success rate of 93%). The capture thresholds in LBBAP at implant and 6 months were 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ± 0.1 ms and 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ± 0.1 ms. The rate of patients with capture threshold rise ≥1 V was 1.5% through 6 months. The R-wave amplitudes in LBBAP at implant and 6 months were 9.3 ± 3.2 mV and 10.6 ± 3.0 mV. CONCLUSIONS: This large multicenter study demonstrates that the stylet-driven Tendril™ STS 2088 lead is safe and effective for LBBAP with high success and low complication rates.

Transvenous extraction of conduction system pacing leads: An international multicenter (TECSPAM) study.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) by His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is incorporated into Heart Rhythm Society guidelines for the management of bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Despite increasing adoption with both lumenless leads and stylet-driven leads, concerns regarding the feasibility and safety of the extraction of CSP leads remain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to report on the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of the extraction of CSP leads. METHODS: Patients undergoing the extraction of CSP leads from 10 international centers were enrolled in this retrospective study. Data regarding indications, lead location, lead type, extraction tools, procedural success, complications, and reimplantation in the conduction system were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 341 patients (age 69 ± 15 years; female 117 (34%); cardiomyopathy 157 (46%); lead dwell time 22 ± 26 months) underwent the extraction of 224 His bundle pacing and 117 LBBAP leads (lumenless leads 321; stylet-driven leads 20). Complete procedural success was achieved in 338 (99%), while clinical success was 100% with retained distal fragments in 3 patients (1%). Among patients with a lead dwell time of >6 months (6-193 months; n = 226), manual extraction was successful in 198 (87%), mechanical tools in 22 (10%), and laser in 6 (3%). Femoral tools were necessary in 3 patients. Minor complications occurred in 7 patients (2.1%). Reimplantation in the conduction system was successful in 233 of 244 patients attempted (95%). CONCLUSION: The overall success rates of the extraction of CSP leads were very high (although the LBBAP lead dwell time was <3 years), with a low need for extraction tools and minimal complication. Reimplantation in the conduction system is feasible and safe.