Key result
His bundle, LBBP, and leadless pacing offer promising solutions for ~30% of conventional CRT non-responders.
Why the study?
Unsuccessful LV lead placement and high rates of non-response limit conventional BVP, prompting evaluation of alternative pacing strategies for CRT.
Do alternative pacing strategies (HBP, LBBAP, leadless LV pacing) improve outcomes in heart failure patients requiring CRT compared to conventional biventricular pacing?
Do alternative pacing strategies (HBP, LBBAP, leadless LV pacing) improve outcomes in heart failure patients requiring CRT compared to conventional biventricular pacing?
Alternative pacing strategies, including HBP, LBBAP, and leadless LV pacing, offer effective physiological resynchronization options for heart failure patients who fail or do not respond to conventional biventricular pacing.
May guide alternative pacing selection in CRT non-responders; leaves open confirmation by randomized outcome trials.
biventricular pacing (BVP) improves morbidity, mortality, and quality of life, especially in subsets of patients with impaired cardiac function and wide QRS. However, the rate of unsuccessful or complicated left ventricular (LV) lead placement through coronary sinus is 5-7%, and the rate of "CRT non-response" is approximately 30%. These reasons have pushed physicians and engineers to collaborate to overcome the challenges of LV lead implantation. Thus, various alternatives to BVP have been proposed to improve CRT effectiveness. His bundle pacing (HBP) has been increasingly used by activating the His-Purkinje system but is constrained by challenging implantation, low success rates, high and often unstable thresholds, and low perception. Therefore, the concept of pacing a specialized conduction system distal to the His bundle to bypass the block region was proposed. Multiple clinical studies have demonstrated that left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has comparable electrical resynchronization with HBP but is superior in terms of simpler operation, higher success rates, lower and stable capture thresholds, and higher perception. Despite their well-demonstrated effectiveness, the transvenous lead-related complications remain major limitations. Recently, leadless LV pacing has been developed and demonstrated effective for these challenging patient cohorts. This article focuses on the current state and latest progress in HBP, LBBAP, and leadless LV pacing as alternatives for failed or non-responsive conventional CRT as well as their limits and prospects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hua et al. (2022) conducted a review in Impaired cardiac function and wide QRS requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. Alternative pacing strategies (His bundle pacing, left bundle branch area pacing, leadless LV pacing) vs. Conventional biventricular pacing was evaluated. Alternative pacing strategies, including His bundle, left bundle branch area, and leadless pacing, offer promising solutions for the approximately 30% of patients non-responsive to conventional CRT.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: