Key result
Left ventricular pacing was not superior to biventricular pacing for improving exercise duration at 75% of peak Vo2 (14.0 vs 14.3 minutes; P=0.4327).
Why the study?
Does left ventricular pacing improve exercise duration compared to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure, LVEF ≤35%, and QRS ≥120 ms?
RCT (n=121)
Double-blind
Crossover
Yes
Does left ventricular pacing improve exercise duration compared to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure, LVEF ≤35%, and QRS ≥120 ms?
Absolute Event Rate: 14% vs 14.3%
p-value: p=0.4327
Left ventricular pacing is not superior to biventricular pacing for improving exercise tolerance or LV remodeling in heart failure patients, though it may serve as an alternative for BiV nonresponders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Does not support left ventricular pacing over biventricular pacing in HFrEF with wide QRS; confirms biventricular pacing remains standard for CRT.
Thibault et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=121). Left ventricular (LV) pacing vs. Biventricular (BiV) pacing was evaluated on Exercise duration at 75% of peak Vo(2) (p=0.4327). Left ventricular pacing was not superior to biventricular pacing for improving exercise duration at 75% of peak Vo2 (14.0 vs 14.3 minutes; P=0.4327).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: