Why the study?
About one-third of patients receiving CRT do not show clinical improvement, possibly because standard LBBB criteria do not clearly isolate true conduction block from other causes of wide QRS.
Does patient selection using Strauss criteria for LBBB or conduction system pacing improve CRT outcomes compared to conventional criteria or biventricular pacing?
Population
17 comparative studies (n ≈ 4200) and six randomized controlled trials
Comparison
Strauss-positive vs Strauss-negative LBBB patients, and randomized CSP trials using Strauss-type vs typical LBBB
Design
Systematic evidence synthesis conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines
Key result
Strauss-defined LBBB is associated with improved CRT outcomes in observational studies, but randomized trials of conduction system pacing show mixed results dependent on operator experience.
Authors
Loading...
Strauss-defined LBBB is associated with improved CRT outcomes in observational studies, but randomized trials are needed to confirm superiority over conventional criteria, and CSP outcomes heavily depend on operator experience.
Systematic Review
Does patient selection using Strauss criteria for LBBB or conduction system pacing improve CRT outcomes compared to conventional criteria or biventricular pacing?
Strauss-defined LBBB is associated with improved CRT outcomes in observational studies, but randomized trials are needed to confirm superiority over conventional criteria, and CSP outcomes heavily depend on operator experience.
Saplaouras et al. (2026) conducted a systematic review in Left bundle branch block (LBBB) in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Strauss criteria for LBBB and conduction system pacing (CSP) vs. Conventional LBBB criteria and biventricular pacing (BiVP) was evaluated. Strauss-defined LBBB is associated with improved CRT outcomes in observational studies, but randomized trials of conduction system pacing show mixed results dependent on operator experience.