Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Conduction System Pacing Versus Conventional Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Congenital Heart Disease
Authors' conclusion
CSP can be reliably achieved in biventricular, systemic left ventricular CHD patients with similar improvement in LVEF and greater QRS narrowing for CSP vs conventional CRT at 1 year.
Study context
- Population
- Congenital heart disease (CHD) with biventricular, systemic LV anatomy65 conduction system pacing (CSP) cases
- Exposure
- CSP vs conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)
- CSPn = 65
- Outcome
- Lead performance, change in LVEF and QRS duration
- Follow-up
- 12 months
Methodological detailspropensity-score matched, multicentre (7 centres)
- Propensity-score matched
- Multicentre (7 centres)
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
| Outcome | CSP | Conventional CRT | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Δ LVEF | 9.0% | 6.0% | |
| Δ QRS duration | 35 ms | 14 ms | P = 0.04 |
- CSP vs Conventional CRT: 95% CI −2.9% to 10.0%; P = 0.30 — Δ left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); non-inferior
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Lead performance: LBBAP vs HBP (within CSP) · smaller increase in pacing threshold
P = 0.05
Lead performance: LBBAP vs HBP (within CSP)
- Similar sensing parameters at follow-up
Safety
Complications
P = 1.00
Original publication
Conduction System Pacing Versus Conventional Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Congenital Heart Disease. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. Published 30 November 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →