Key result
Permanent left ventricular endocardial pacing resulted in substantial and persistent clinical improvement in a patient who was a non-responder to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Why the study?
Does permanent LV endocardial pacing improve clinical efficacy in a CRT non-responder?
Case Report (n=1)
Does permanent LV endocardial pacing improve clinical efficacy in a CRT non-responder?
Transseptal LV endocardial pacing guided by acute haemodynamic testing may provide substantial clinical benefit in patients who are non-responders to conventional CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hypothesis-generating for LV endocardial pacing in CRT non-responders; prospective trials needed before clinical adoption.
Bracke et al. (2010) conducted a case report in Non-responder to cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=1). Left ventricular endocardial pacing was evaluated on Clinical and haemodynamic improvement. Permanent left ventricular endocardial pacing resulted in substantial and persistent clinical improvement in a patient who was a non-responder to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: