Key result
Conduction system pacing improves LVEF by ~3.6% over biventricular pacing and reduces QRS in HFrEF.
Why the study?
Traditional biventricular pacing for CRT in HFrEF and LBBB may be limited by high non-responder rates and elevated cost, leading to conduction system pacing as an alternative.
Does conduction system pacing improve outcomes compared to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB)?
Does conduction system pacing improve outcomes compared to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB)?
Conduction system pacing is emerging as a promising and safe alternative to traditional biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with HFrEF.
May support conduction system pacing in HFrEF; leaves open confirmation of clinical outcomes in randomized trials.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ternes et al. (2024) conducted a review in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). Conduction system pacing vs. Biventricular pacing was evaluated on Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD 3.6%, 95% CI 1.53-5.74, p=<0.01). Conduction system pacing resulted in a greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 3.6%) and reduction in QRS duration compared to biventricular pacing in patients with HFrEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: