Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Nov;7(11):1422-1432.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.04.003. Epub 2021 Apr 25.

A Randomized Trial of His Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing in Symptomatic HF Patients With Left Bundle Branch Block (His-Alternative)

Affiliations
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

A Randomized Trial of His Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing in Symptomatic HF Patients With Left Bundle Branch Block (His-Alternative)

Michael Vinther et al. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Nov.
Free article

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to compare 2 ways of achieving cardiac resynchronization.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with symptomatic heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB) can be achieved with His-bundle pacing correcting the bundle branch block (His-CRT). The present study is the largest randomized study comparing His-CRT and biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) to date.

Methods: Fifty patients with symptomatic heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and LBBB according to electrocardiography were randomized 1:1 to His-CRT or BiV-CRT and followed for 6 months. At implantation, 7 patients crossed over from His-pacing to LV-pacing in the His-CRT group and 1 patient crossed over from LV-pacing to His-pacing in the BiV-CRT group.

Results: His-corrective pacing was achieved in 72% of the patients in the His-CRT group. Intention-to-treat 6-month follow-up LVEF increased by 16 ± 7% in the His-CRT group compared with 13 ± 6% in the BiV-CRT group (nonsignificant) and improvements were seen in clinical and physical parameters in both treatment arms with no significant differences between the groups. Pacing thresholds were higher for His-CRT compared with BiV-CRT both at implantation (1.8 ± 1.2 V vs. 1.2 ± 0.8 V; p < 0.01) and at 6-month follow-up (2.3 ± 1.4 V vs. 1.4 ± 0.5 V; p < 0.01). The per-protocol LVEF was significantly higher at 6 months (48 ± 8% vs. 42 ± 8%; p < 0.05) and the end-systolic volume was lower (65 ± 22 ml vs. 83 ± 27 ml; p < 0.05) in His-CRT patients compared with BiV-CRT.

Conclusions: In heart failure patients with LBBB, His-CRT provided similar clinical and physical improvement compared with BiV-CRT at the expense of higher pacing thresholds.

Keywords: His-pacing; biventricular pacing; cardiac resynchronization therapy; heart failure; left bundle branch block.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was funded by a research grant from the Clinical Research Unit at the Heart Center, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources