Prospective Randomized Trial of Conduction System Pacing versus Right Ventricular Pacing for Patients with Atrio-Ventricular Block; Prague CSP trial

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064173%3A_____%2F25%3A43928468" target="_blank" >RIV/00064173:_____/25:43928468 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11120/25:43928468

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.05.036" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.05.036</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.05.036" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.05.036</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Prospective Randomized Trial of Conduction System Pacing versus Right Ventricular Pacing for Patients with Atrio-Ventricular Block; Prague CSP trial

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) replaces right ventricular pacing (RVP) in bradycardia patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare CSP vs. RVP in patients with pacemaker indication due to the AV conduction disease. METHODS: This study randomized patients to CSP or RVP in 1:1 ratio and followed them for 12 months. CSP received either His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP); The primary endpoint was a change in the LVEF. The combined composite clinical endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, CRT upgrade, or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Of 249 patients, 125 were randomized to RVP and 124 to CSP; no differences between clinical parameters. In CSP, ten patients received HBP, 96 LBBAP, 15 deep septal pacing, and 3 RVP. Procedural and fluoroscopy times were longer in CSP vs. RVP (63 vs. 40 and 7 vs. 3 min; p &lt; 0.001). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the LVEF decline in CSP was smaller than RVP (-2% vs. -4%, p = 0.03) and a LVEF decrease &gt;= 10% occurred more often in RVP 19 (16%) than CSP 6 (5%), p = 0.01. There was no difference in the composite clinical outcome between RVP and CSP (9 vs. 4, p = 0.15). There was also no difference in procedural complications (9 in RVP vs. 2 in CSP, p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: In patients with severe conduction disease, CSP led to a smaller LVEF decline than RVP after one year of pacing. Both pacing methods had similar rates of clinical endpoints and procedural complications.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Prospective Randomized Trial of Conduction System Pacing versus Right Ventricular Pacing for Patients with Atrio-Ventricular Block; Prague CSP trial

Popis výsledku anglicky

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) replaces right ventricular pacing (RVP) in bradycardia patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare CSP vs. RVP in patients with pacemaker indication due to the AV conduction disease. METHODS: This study randomized patients to CSP or RVP in 1:1 ratio and followed them for 12 months. CSP received either His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP); The primary endpoint was a change in the LVEF. The combined composite clinical endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, CRT upgrade, or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Of 249 patients, 125 were randomized to RVP and 124 to CSP; no differences between clinical parameters. In CSP, ten patients received HBP, 96 LBBAP, 15 deep septal pacing, and 3 RVP. Procedural and fluoroscopy times were longer in CSP vs. RVP (63 vs. 40 and 7 vs. 3 min; p &lt; 0.001). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the LVEF decline in CSP was smaller than RVP (-2% vs. -4%, p = 0.03) and a LVEF decrease &gt;= 10% occurred more often in RVP 19 (16%) than CSP 6 (5%), p = 0.01. There was no difference in the composite clinical outcome between RVP and CSP (9 vs. 4, p = 0.15). There was also no difference in procedural complications (9 in RVP vs. 2 in CSP, p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: In patients with severe conduction disease, CSP led to a smaller LVEF decline than RVP after one year of pacing. Both pacing methods had similar rates of clinical endpoints and procedural complications.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/NU21-02-00584" target="_blank" >NU21-02-00584: Využití vysokofrekvenčního EKG k predikci negativní remodelace levé komory srdeční při chronické kardiostimulaci</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2025

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Heart Rhythm

ISSN

1547-5271

e-ISSN

1556-3871

Svazek periodika

22

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

10

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

9

Strana od-do

"e894"-"e902"

Kód UT WoS článku

001589506000001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-105008527831