Why the study?
Conduction system pacing has emerged as an alternative to conventional right ventricular and biventricular pacing, prompting a review of its evolution and beneficial clinical scenarios.
Does conduction system pacing improve hemodynamic responses compared to conventional RV or BiV pacing in patients with heart failure and LBBB or anticipated LV dysfunction?
Does conduction system pacing improve hemodynamic responses compared to conventional RV or BiV pacing in patients with heart failure and LBBB or anticipated LV dysfunction?
Conduction system pacing is emerging as a promising alternative to conventional RV and biventricular pacing, showing improved hemodynamic responses.
CSP may improve hemodynamics in HF with LBBB; leaves open need for RCTs versus BiV before practice change.
Conduction system pacing (CSP) has been emerging over the last decade as a pacing option instead of conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing and biventricular (BiV) pacing. Numerous case reports, some observational studies and a few randomized control trials have looked at optimum pacing strategies for heart failure (HF) with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or cases where left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is anticipated due to chronic RV pacing (RVP). Evolution of pacing strategies from standard RVP to septal RVP, BiV pacing and now CSP have shown improving hemodynamic responses and possible ease of implantation of CSP systems. In this review article, we review the literature on the evolution of CSP and common scenarios where it might be beneficial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moustafa et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: