Prospective randomized trial of conduction system pacing vs right ventricular pacing for patients with atrioventricular block, Prague CSP trial

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F68081731%3A_____%2F25%3A00640289" target="_blank" >RIV/68081731:_____/25:00640289 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00159816:_____/25:00082371 RIV/27283933:_____/25:N0000024

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1547527125024658" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1547527125024658</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 vs right ventricular pacing for patients with atrioventricular 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 atrioventricular 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 or left bundle branch area pacing, The primary end point was a change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The combined composite clinical end point consisted of cardiovascular death, cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade, or hospitalization for heart failure. Results Of 249 patients, 125 were randomized to RVP and 124 to CSP, there were no differences between clinical parameters. In CSP, 10 patients received His bundle pacing, 96 left bundle branch area pacing, 15 deep septal pacing, and 3 RVP. Procedural and fluoroscopy times were longer in CSP vs RVP (63 vs 40 and 7 vs 3 minutes, P < .001). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the LVEF decline in CSP was smaller than RVP (-2% vs4%, P = .03), and a LVEF decrease >= 10% occurred more often in RVP 19 (16%) than CSP 6 (5%), P = .01. There was no difference in the composite clinical outcome between RVP and CSP (9 vs 4, P = .15). There was also no difference in procedural complications (9 in RVP vs 2 in CSP, P = .09). Conclusion In patients with severe conduction disease, CSP led to a smaller LVEF decline than RVP after 1 year of pacing. Both pacing methods had similar rates of clinical end points and procedural complications.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Prospective randomized trial of conduction system pacing vs right ventricular pacing for patients with atrioventricular 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 atrioventricular 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 or left bundle branch area pacing, The primary end point was a change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The combined composite clinical end point consisted of cardiovascular death, cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade, or hospitalization for heart failure. Results Of 249 patients, 125 were randomized to RVP and 124 to CSP, there were no differences between clinical parameters. In CSP, 10 patients received His bundle pacing, 96 left bundle branch area pacing, 15 deep septal pacing, and 3 RVP. Procedural and fluoroscopy times were longer in CSP vs RVP (63 vs 40 and 7 vs 3 minutes, P < .001). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the LVEF decline in CSP was smaller than RVP (-2% vs4%, P = .03), and a LVEF decrease >= 10% occurred more often in RVP 19 (16%) than CSP 6 (5%), P = .01. There was no difference in the composite clinical outcome between RVP and CSP (9 vs 4, P = .15). There was also no difference in procedural complications (9 in RVP vs 2 in CSP, P = .09). Conclusion In patients with severe conduction disease, CSP led to a smaller LVEF decline than RVP after 1 year of pacing. Both pacing methods had similar rates of clinical end points 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

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

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