Key result
Conduction system pacing linked to ~58% fewer HF hospitalizations or deaths vs BiV in non-LBBB.
Why the study?
Benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy with biventricular pacing are significantly lower in heart failure patients with non-LBBB conduction delay.
Does conduction system pacing reduce the composite of HF-hospitalizations or all-cause mortality compared to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with non-LBBB conduction delay?
Population
96 HF patients with non-LBBB conduction delay
Comparison
CSP vs 1:1 propensity-matched BiV
Design
Propensity-matched registry-based cohort study
Authors
Loading...
Does not support changing practice to CSP over BiV in non-LBBB HF; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Cohort (n=96)
Does conduction system pacing reduce the composite of HF-hospitalizations or all-cause mortality compared to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with non-LBBB conduction delay?
Effect estimate: AHR 0.42 (95% CI 0.21-0.84)
Absolute Event Rate: 27% vs 69%
p-value: p=0.01
Conduction system pacing may offer superior clinical and echocardiographic outcomes compared to traditional biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with non-LBBB conduction delay.
Tan et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with non-left bundle branch block (n=96). Conduction system pacing vs. Biventricular pacing was evaluated on Composite of HF-hospitalizations or all-cause mortality (AHR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.84, p=0.01). Conduction system pacing reduced HF-hospitalizations or all-cause mortality compared to biventricular pacing in non-LBBB heart failure (AHR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.84; P=0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: