Key result
Rate-adaptive AV delay-guided single LV pacing linked to ~50% fewer rehospitalizations vs standard biventricular pacing.
Why the study?
Current guidelines lack long-term evidence comparing single left ventricular pacing with standard biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Does rate-adaptive atrioventricular delay algorithm-guided single left ventricular pacing improve clinical outcomes and battery longevity compared to standard biventricular pacing in patients with CRT indications and complete LBBB?
Cohort (n=67)
No
Does rate-adaptive atrioventricular delay algorithm-guided single left ventricular pacing improve clinical outcomes and battery longevity compared to standard biventricular pacing in patients with CRT indications and complete LBBB?
Absolute Event Rate: 23.8% vs 48%
p-value: p=0.041
Single left ventricular pacing with a rate-adaptive AV delay algorithm offers superior clinical outcomes, fewer complications, and longer battery life than standard biventricular pacing in CRT patients with complete LBBB.
Background Current guidelines lack long-term evidence comparing single left ventricular pacing (LUVP) with standard biventricular pacing (BVP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study evaluates the clinical superiority of rate-adaptive atrioventricular delay (RAAVD) algorithm-guided LUVP over BVP. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, 67 consecutive patients meeting the criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB) were enrolled between April 2013 and April 2023. They were assigned to either the right atrium-left ventricle dual-site pacing group (RAAVD LUVP, n = 42) or the biventricular pacing group (BVP, n = 25), with a median follow-up duration of 43.59 months. The primary endpoints included disease-related rehospitalization, device complications, and battery longevity. Secondary outcomes comprised cardiac structure, function, and synchrony. Results There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics such as preoperative ejection fraction and cardiomyopathy type between the groups. The RAAVD LUVP group demonstrated significant advantages: i) Rehospitalization rate (23.8% vs. 48.0%, P = 0.041); ii) Zero device complications vs. 12% in BVP ( P = 0.048), iii) Extended battery longevity (7.95 ± 0.78 vs. 4.66 ± 0.66 years, P < 0.001); iv) Cardiac function (LVEF: 45.7 ± 13.3% vs. 38.9 ± 10.6%, P = 0.034; The 6-minute walk distance: 414.50 ± 68.79 m vs. 379.04 ± 58.02 m; P = 0.034); v) Cardiac structure (LAD: 35.55 ± 7.11 mm vs. 39.96 ± 8.25 mm, P = 0.018; LVEDd: 60.10 ± 10.85 mm vs. 67.68 ± 9.40 mm, P = 0.01), and vi) Cardiac synchronization ( paced QRS duration : 129.00 ± 18.78 vs. 147.96 ± 26.13 ms, P = 0.001; Ts-SD12: 96.66 ± 51.51 ms vs. 122.12 ± 52.29 ms; P = 0.034). Subgroup analysis revealed left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) further enhanced interventricular synchrony compared to lateral vein pacing (IVMD: 37.74 ± 21.24 vs. 53.11 ± 19.42 ms, P = 0.020). Conclusion The dynamic integration of RAAVD LUVP with intrinsic conduction brings CRT closer to physiological states, which provides sustained clinical benefits compared to conventional BVP. The additional electromechanical advantages of LBBAP are related to the choice of anatomical location.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Chronic heart failure with complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB) (n=67). Rate-adaptive atrioventricular delay (RAAVD) algorithm-guided single left ventricular pacing (LUVP) vs. Standard biventricular pacing (BVP) was evaluated on Disease-related rehospitalization (p=0.041). Rate-adaptive atrioventricular delay-guided single left ventricular pacing significantly reduced the disease-related rehospitalization rate to 23.8% compared to 48.0% with standard biventricular pacing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: