Key result
Cardiac resynchronization therapy is evolving with new modalities, including leadless pacemakers and conduction system pacing, to address the high rate of non-responders in heart failure management.
Why the study?
Despite the established benefits of CRT in heart failure management, a high rate of CRT non-responders has motivated new modalities such as leadless CRT pacemakers and conduction system pacing.
This review highlights recent advances in cardiac resynchronization therapy, particularly the development of leadless devices and conduction system pacing to improve outcomes in non-responders.
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) has been established as a major component of heart failure management, resulting in a significant reduction in patient morbidity and death for patients with increased QRS duration, low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and high risk of arrhythmias. The ability to synchronize both ventricles, lower heart failure hospitalizations, and optimize clinical outcomes are some of the attractive characteristics of biventricular pacing, or CRT. However, the high rate of CRT non-responders has led to the development of new modalities including leadless CRT pacemakers (CRT-P) and devices focused on conduction system pacing (CSP). This comprehensive review aims to present recent findings from CRT clinical trials and systematic reviews that have been published that will likely guide future directions in patient care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siddiqui et al. (2025) conducted a review in Heart failure. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) was evaluated. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is evolving with new modalities, including leadless pacemakers and conduction system pacing, to address the high rate of non-responders in heart failure management.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: