Does conduction system pacing reduce device-related complications or heart failure hospitalizations compared to biventricular pacing in patients undergoing an ablate and pace strategy?
Conduction system pacing is a feasible alternative to biventricular pacing in patients undergoing an ablate and pace strategy, offering similar midterm safety and HF hospitalization rates, with LBBAP providing procedural and battery longevity advantages.
BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), have been proposed as alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients scheduled for ablate and pace (A p = .650), and of HF hospitalization (2.7%, 1.5%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .850). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of A&P, CSP is a feasible pacing modality, with a midterm safety profile comparable to BVP. LBBAP offers the advantage of reducing procedural times and obtaining lower and stable capture thresholds, with a positive impact on the device longevity.
Palmisano et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: