Initial experience of left bundle branch pacing using the Abbott Agilis HisPro Catheter with stylet-driven leads.

AIMS: Conduction system pacing has gained steady interest over recent years. While the majority of tools and delivery techniques were developed for His bundle pacing (HBP), the feasibility and reproducibility of using these similar tools for left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has yet to be determined. We describe our technique for performing LBBP using the Abbott Agilis HisPro™ Steerable Catheter. METHODS AND RESULTS: A series of 22 patients with a mean age of 71.7 years (16 males, 72.7%), underwent LBBP procedure with this catheter between May and October 2021. Nineteen patients (86%) had successful LBBP lead implantation. There were no major complications or mortality. CONCLUSION: The Agilis HisPro™ catheter along with the stylet driven Tendril STS Model 2088TC lead is a safe and feasible delivery system for LBBP.

Remote monitoring of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a Southeast Asian, single-centre pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) has been shown to improve patient safety and reduce in-office visits. We report our experience with remote monitoring via the Medtronic CareLink(®) network. METHODS: Patients were followed up for six months with scheduled monthly remote monitoring transmissions in addition to routine in-office checks. The efficacy of remote monitoring was evaluated by recording compliance to transmissions, number of device alerts requiring intervention and time from transmission to review. Questionnaires were administered to evaluate the experiences of patients, physicians and medical technicians. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients were enrolled; 16 (28.1%) had permanent pacemakers, 34 (59.6%) had implantable cardioverter defibrillators and 7 (12.3%) had cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators. Overall, of 334 remote transmissions scheduled, 73.7% were on time, 14.5% were overdue and 11.8% were missed. 84.6% of wireless transmissions were on time, compared to 53.8% of non-wireless transmissions. Among all transmissions, 4.4% contained alerts for which physicians were informed and only 1.8% required intervention. 98.6% of remote transmissions were reviewed by the second working day. 73.2% of patients preferred remote monitoring. Physicians agreed that remote transmissions provided information equivalent to in-office checks 97.1% of the time. 77.8% of medical technicians felt that remote monitoring would help the hospital improve patient management. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Remote monitoring of CIED is safe and feasible. It has possible benefits to patient safety through earlier detection of arrhythmias or device malfunction, permitting earlier intervention. Wireless remote monitoring, in particular, may improve compliance to device monitoring. Patients may prefer remote monitoring due to possible improvements in quality of life.