Why the study?
RV pacing has deleterious effects on ventricular function, and LV-only fusion pacing may improve CRT outcomes and non-response rates compared to standard biventricular pacing.
Does LV only fusion CRT pacing improve outcomes compared to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with preserved AV conduction?
Does LV only fusion CRT pacing improve outcomes compared to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with preserved AV conduction?
LV only fusion CRT pacing represents a potential alternative to standard biventricular pacing for heart failure patients with preserved AV conduction, potentially reducing non-responder rates.
Questions necessity of RV lead in CRT; hypothesis-generating for simplified pacing strategies in HF.
Triple-chamber cardiac devices are utilized for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and is the standard-of-care therapy for heart failure (HF) patients in the current guidelines. In the setting of biventricular (BIV) pacing it involves a mandatory implantation of right ventricular (RV) lead that allows simultaneous BIV pacing with 0 ms VV (ventricular to ventricular) interval. Nevertheless, it seems that response to CRT is not related to RV lead position. RV pacing is known for deleterious effects on RV/Left Ventricle (LV) function and should not be used in persons with normal atrioventricular conduction (AV) and sinus rhythm. As it compensates for the additional asynchrony induced by unnecessary stimulation of RV pacing, only pacing the left ventricle (LV) may result in improved cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcomes and a decrease in the number of individuals who do not respond to the procedure. Furthermore, leadless LV fusion CRT pacing without RV lead could be a potential CRT therapy alternative to BIV pacing in nonischemic heart failure patients with preserved AV conduction. The aim of our study is to made an update in cardiac resynchronization therapy with LV only fusion pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gurgu et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: