Key result
Left univentricular pacing with rate-adaptive AV delay reduces QRS duration ~6 ms vs BiV pacing.
Why the study?
Does left univentricular pacing using a rate-adaptive atrioventricular delay algorithm improve physiological tracking and reduce costs compared to standard biventricular pacing in patients receiving CRT?
RCT (n=72)
Single-blind
1:1 ratio
No
Does left univentricular pacing using a rate-adaptive atrioventricular delay algorithm improve physiological tracking and reduce costs compared to standard biventricular pacing in patients receiving CRT?
Absolute Event Rate: 132% vs 138%
p-value: p=0.012
Left univentricular pacing with a rate-adaptive atrioventricular delay algorithm is as effective as standard biventricular pacing, potentially offering a more physiological and cost-effective alternative for CRT.
May support RAAVD LUV pacing as BiV alternative; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized validation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate left univentricular (LUV) pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using a rate-adaptive atrioventricular delay (RAAVD) algorithm to track physiological atrioventricular delay (AVD). CONCLUSIONS: RAAVD LUV pacing is as effective as standard BiV pacing, can be more physiological than standard BiV pacing, and can decrease the average annual cost of CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pu et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Congestive heart failure (n=72). Left univentricular (LUV) pacing with rate-adaptive atrioventricular delay (RAAVD) vs. Standard biventricular (BiV) pacing was evaluated on QRS complex duration (p=0.012). Left univentricular pacing with a rate-adaptive atrioventricular delay algorithm significantly reduced QRS complex duration (132 vs 138 ms) and optimization time compared to standard biventricular pacing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: