Why the study?
Up to one third of patients receiving BiVP-CRT are non-responders, prompting evaluation of physiological pacing modalities like His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing to restore normal electrical activation.
Does conduction system pacing improve outcomes compared to conventional biventricular pacing in symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS?
Does conduction system pacing improve outcomes compared to conventional biventricular pacing in symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS?
Conduction system pacing represents a promising, safe, and feasible physiological alternative to conventional biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CSP may support physiological CRT alternatives; leaves open outcome superiority versus BiV pacing in HFrEF with wide QRS.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BiVP-CRT) is considered a mainstay treatment for symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS. However, up to one third of patients receiving BiVP-CRT are considered non-responders to the therapy. Multiples strategies have been proposed to maximize the percentage of CRT responders including two new physiological pacing modalities that have emerged during the lasts years: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Both pacing techniques aim at restoring the normal electrical activation of the ventricles through the native conduction system in opposition to the cell-to-cell activation of conventional right ventricular myocardial pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both HBP and LBBAP appears to be a promising pacing modality for delivering CRT and has proven to be safe and feasible in this particular setting. This article will review the current state of the art of CSP-based CRT, its limitations and future directions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cano et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: