Key result
Biventricular, septal, and conduction system pacing may minimize dyssynchrony that cuts cardiac efficiency by ~30%.
Why the study?
Maintaining cardiac efficiency appears important for long-term outcomes, and alternative pacing modalities may minimise pacing-induced dyssynchrony and efficiency loss compared with conventional right ventricular pacing.
Do biventricular, septal, and conduction system pacing modalities improve cardiac efficiency and mechanical synchrony compared to conventional right ventricular pacing?
Comparison
Biventricular, left ventricular septal, His bundle, and left bundle branch pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing
Design
Review
Authors
Loading...
Physiologic pacing may preserve efficiency versus RV pacing; leaves open need for RCTs before practice change.
Do biventricular, septal, and conduction system pacing modalities improve cardiac efficiency and mechanical synchrony compared to conventional right ventricular pacing?
Alternative pacing strategies, including conduction system and septal pacing, appear to preserve cardiac mechanical synchrony and energetic efficiency better than conventional right ventricular pacing.
Prinzen et al. (2021) conducted a review in Cardiac dyssynchrony. Biventricular, septal, and conduction system pacing vs. Conventional right ventricular pacing was evaluated on Cardiac efficiency and mechanical synchrony. Biventricular, septal, and conduction system pacing may minimize pacing-induced dyssynchrony, which lowers cardiac pump efficiency by approximately 30% compared to synchronous hearts.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: