Is Conduction System Pacing a Valuable Alternative to Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy?

His bundle pacing biventricular pacing cardiac resynchronization therapy conduction system pacing left bundle branch area pacing

Journal

Journal of cardiovascular development and disease
ISSN: 2308-3425
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Dev Dis
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101651414

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 May 2024
Historique:
received: 29 03 2024
revised: 28 04 2024
accepted: 30 04 2024
medline: 24 5 2024
pubmed: 24 5 2024
entrez: 24 5 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) significantly improves clinical outcomes in patients with ventricular systolic dysfunction and dyssynchrony. Biventricular pacing (BVP) has a class IA recommendation for patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, approximately 30% of patients have a poor therapeutic response and do not achieve real clinical benefit. Pre-implant imaging, together with tailored programming and dedicated device algorithms, have been proposed as possible tools to improve success rate but have shown inconsistent results. Over the last few years, conduction system pacing (CSP) is becoming a real and attractive alternative to standard BVP as it can restore narrow QRS in patients with bundle branch block (BBB) by stimulating and recruiting the cardiac conduction system, thus ensuring true resynchronization. It includes His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Preliminary data coming from small single-center experiences are very promising and have laid the basis for currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing CSP with BVP. The purpose of this review is to delve into the emerging role of CSP as an alternative method of achieving CRT. After framing CSP in a historical perspective, the pathophysiological rationale and available clinical evidence will be examined, and crucial technical aspects will be discussed. Finally, evidence gaps and future perspectives on CSP as a technique of choice to deliver CRT will be summarized.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38786966
pii: jcdd11050144
doi: 10.3390/jcdd11050144
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Auteurs

Davide Castagno (D)

Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.
Division of Cardiology, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Department, "Citta della Salute e della Scienza" Hospital, 10126 Turin, Italy.

Francesco Zanon (F)

Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Unit, 45100 Rovigo, Italy.

Gianni Pastore (G)

Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Unit, 45100 Rovigo, Italy.

Gaetano Maria De Ferrari (GM)

Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.
Division of Cardiology, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Department, "Citta della Salute e della Scienza" Hospital, 10126 Turin, Italy.

Lina Marcantoni (L)

Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Unit, 45100 Rovigo, Italy.

Classifications MeSH