Why the study?
Does lead-based endocardial left ventricular pacing provide clinical response with acceptable complication rates in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Does lead-based endocardial left ventricular pacing provide clinical response with acceptable complication rates in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Endocardial LV pacing is a viable alternative for CRT when conventional placement fails, offering comparable response rates but with a small increase in stroke risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Endocardial LV pacing may be viable when CS placement fails; leaves open long-term thromboembolic risks pending randomized data.
Gamble et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: