Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyRandomised controlled trial
Biventricular vs. right ventricular pacing devices in patients anticipated to require frequent ventricular pacing (BioPace)
- Randomised controlled trial
- multicentre
- single-blinded (patients)
- parallel group
Authors' conclusion
In patients, predominantly with preserved LVEF, narrow QRS, and HVPB, superiority of implanting BiVPDs compared with RVPDs could not be proven.
Study context
- Population
- Patients anticipated to require frequent ventricular pacing, predominantly with preserved LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and narrow QRSrandomized, analysed
- Participants
- 1,810 patients
- Comparison
- Biventricular (BiV) pacing device vs right ventricular (RV) pacing device
- BiVn = 902
- RVn = 908reference
- Primary endpoint
- Co-primary: (i) composite of time to death or first HF hospitalization; (ii) survival time
- Follow-up
- Mean 68.8 months
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
BiV
346
events
RV
363
events
BiV vs RVHazard ratio (95% CI)P value
death or first HF hospitalization
0.878(0.756–1.020)
P = 0.0882mortality
0.926(0.789–1.088)
P = 0.3492Original publication
Biventricular vs. right ventricular pacing devices in patients anticipated to require frequent ventricular pacing (BioPace). Europace. Published 19 March 2025. doi:10.1093/europace/euaf029
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it