Why the study?
Most evidence for conduction system pacing stems from acquired heart disease, but traditional pacing in congenital heart disease can exacerbate dyssynchrony and cause long-term ventricular dysfunction.
Conduction system pacing is emerging as a feasible and potentially default physiologic pacing strategy for patients with congenital heart disease, though more robust long-term data are needed.
Supports physiologic pacing exploration in congenital heart disease; leaves open long-term safety and efficacy pending randomized evidence.
INTRODUCTION: Conduction system pacing (CSP) is redefining management of patients requiring permanent pacing by offering a more physiologic alternative to subpulmonary ventricular pacing and conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). While most evidence stems from acquired heart disease, CSP is gaining traction in congenital heart disease, where traditional pacing can exacerbate dyssynchrony and lead to long-term ventricular dysfunction. AREAS COVERED: This review examines the role of CSP in congenital heart disease, focusing on anatomical variability of the atrioventricular conduction system and lesion-specific challenges affecting lead placement. It synthesizes early data on the feasibility and safety of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) across a range of congenital lesions. Technological advances, including CT-based conduction mapping, electroanatomic mapping, and intracardiac echocardiography, enable anatomy-guided implantation strategies. Advances in delivery tools are expanding CSP use in anatomically complex settings. Despite encouraging early results, long-term data are limited, and randomized trials are lacking. EXPERT OPINION: CSP holds the potential to become the default physiologic pacing strategy in congenital heart disease. With advancing tools and operator experience, lesion-specific and hybrid CSP - CRT techniques may optimize outcomes. Key priorities include refining patient selection, defining preventive indications, and developing guidelines to support broader adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rojas et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: