Why the study?
Conduction system pacing has emerged alongside cardiac resynchronization therapy as an alternative tool for dyssynchrony correction in HFrEF, prompting a review of their respective roles and clinical evidence.
How should cardiac dyssynchrony be treated in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction?
How should cardiac dyssynchrony be treated in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction?
This review outlines the pathophysiology of cardiac dyssynchrony and summarizes the clinical evidence and guideline recommendations for CRT and CSP in HFrEF patients.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become part of the standard of care for symptomatic patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction (HRrEF), and wide QRS, despite optimal medical therapy. Device technology, operator experience, and post-implant optimization on follow-up have significantly improved CRT response during the last decade. In parallel, conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a new and potentially better tool for maintaining physiological ventricular activation in patients with antibradycardia pacing, as well as an alternative for dyssynchrony correction in HFrEF patients. The current review focuses on cardiac dyssynchrony pathophysiology and correction methods, clinical evidence on CRT and CSP as therapies for cardiac dyssynchrony, and the role of each according to clinical evidence and current guidelines for HFrEF treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bogdan et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: