Heart failure & cardiomyopathiesResearch article
Safety and efficacy of conduction system pacing in dual-chamber Pacemakers in a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-indicated population: Primary analysis of the CORE-CPP study
- real-world evidence study using Medicare claims data linked to manufacturer device registration data
- 2017-2023 Medicare claims data
- non-inferiority
Authors' conclusion
In a real-world cohort, CSP via a single ventricular lead was non-inferior to CRT-P therapy in patients indicated for CRT. CSP was associated with lower all-cause mortality and all-cause mortality + HFH.
Study context
- Population
- CRT-indicated patients implanted with a dual-chamber pacemaker with a conduction system pacing (CSP) lead or a traditional bi-ventricular CRT pacemaker (CRT-P)de novo patients · CSP 2,207 · CRT-P 5,693
- Participants
- 2,207 vs 5,693
- Comparison
- CSP with dual-chamber pacemakers in comparison with CRT in patients with an indication for CRT
- CSPn = 2,207
- CRT-Pn = 5,693reference
- Outcome
- 30-day acute complications and reinterventions; 12-month heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) (non-inferiority)
- Follow-up
- 30-day; 12-month
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- 30-day complications and reinterventions; non-inferior (OR ≥1.5 1-sided P < .001)
- adj. OR 0.92; P = 0.379
- 12-month heart failure hospitalizations (HFH); non-inferior (HR ≥1.5 1-sided P < .001)
- adj. HR 0.89; P = 0.161
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | adj. HR | P value |
|---|---|---|
| All-cause mortality · lower with CSP | 0.72 | P < 0.001 |
| All-cause mortality + HFH · lower with CSP | 0.82 | P = 0.003 |
Reintervention rates
- No differences in reintervention rates between CSP and CRT-P
Original publication
Safety and efficacy of conduction system pacing in dual-chamber Pacemakers in a CRT-indicated population: Primary analysis of the CORE-CPP study. Heart Rhythm. Published 13 April 2026. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.12.048
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it