Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Review
Caique M Ternes1,2,3, Jitae A Kim4, Anirban Basu5
1Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Insights
Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves heart failure outcomes. Conduction system pacing may offer advantages over biventricular pacing in certain patients, reducing hospitalizations and improving ejection fraction.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Electrophysiology
Background:
- Heart failure (HF) affects over 64 million globally, with high mortality.
- Cardiac dyssynchrony, often from left bundle-branch block, worsens HF in 20-30% of patients with reduced ejection fraction.
- Current guidelines recommend cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for symptomatic HF patients with LVEF ≤35% and LBBB.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure (HF) patients.
- To compare biventricular pacing (BVP) and conduction system pacing (CSP) for CRT.
- To assess the impact of pacing strategies on mortality, hospitalizations, and left ventricular function.
Main Methods:
- Meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials (N=3872) comparing BVP to medical therapy/ICD.
- Meta-analysis of 7 trials (N=408) comparing CSP to BVP in HF patients.
- Observational study (N=1778) comparing CSP to BVP in CRT patients.
- Trial (N=249) comparing CSP to RV pacing for bradycardia.
Main Results:
- Biventricular pacing (BVP) reduced all-cause mortality compared to medical therapy or ICD (13.7% vs 20.8%).
- Conduction system pacing (CSP) improved LVEF compared to BVP (mean difference 2.06%, P=.03).
- CSP was associated with lower HF hospitalization rates than BVP (12% vs 19%) and reduced pacing-induced cardiomyopathy compared to RV pacing (6% vs 15%).
Conclusions:
- Cardiac resynchronization therapy is recommended for specific HF patients to improve outcomes.
- Conduction system pacing demonstrates potential benefits, including improved LVEF and reduced hospitalizations, compared to biventricular pacing.
- CSP may be a preferable alternative to RV pacing in certain patients, mitigating risks of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy.
Importance:
Heart failure (HF) affects more than 64 million individuals worldwide, and acute HF is associated with 1-year mortality rates of 23.6% in North America and Europe. Cardiac dyssynchrony from conduction system disease may cause HF progression, particularly in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction.
Observations:
Electrical dyssynchrony in HF most commonly presents as left bundle-branch block and affects 20% to 30% of patients with reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Cardiac resynchronization therapy, which includes biventricular pacing and conduction system pacing, restores synchronous ventricular contraction and is recommended for patients with symptomatic HF despite optimal medical therapy, LVEF of 35% or less, and left bundle-branch block. Delayed referral for device therapy in this population is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Resynchronization should also be considered for patients requiring chronic ventricular pacing, typically due to symptomatic bradycardia because right ventricular pacing for atrioventricular block may result in ventricular dyssynchrony and increased risk of LV systolic dysfunction. Biventricular pacing uses 2 leads to stimulate the right ventricle and LV simultaneously; conduction system pacing uses a single lead to stimulate the His bundle or left bundle branch. An individual patient-level meta-analysis of 5 randomized clinical trials (N = 3872) reported biventricular pacing was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator over a median follow-up of 23.7 months (13.7% vs 20.8%; hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.57-0.77]). A meta-analysis of 7 small randomized clinical trials, including 408 patients with HF and LVEF of 40% or less, reported that compared with biventricular pacing, conduction system pacing was associated with improvement in LVEF (mean difference, 2.06%; P = .03). An observational study of 1778 patients with LVEF of 35% or less undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy reported conduction system pacing was associated with lower rates of HF hospitalization (12% vs 19%; hazard ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.52-0.86]). A trial of 249 patients without HF undergoing permanent pacing for atrioventricular block-related bradycardia reported lower rates of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, defined as a decrease in LVEF of at least 10% to less than 50% after conduction system pacing vs right ventricular pacing (6% vs 15%; P = .01).
Conclusions And Relevance:
Cardiac dyssynchrony due to conduction system disease occurs in 20% to 30% of patients with HF and systolic dysfunction. Cardiac resynchronization therapy restores synchronous ventricular activation in patients with HF, reduced LVEF, and left bundle-branch block, or in those requiring chronic ventricular pacing, and may improve LV function, decrease HF hospitalizations, and reduce mortality.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy IV: Restrictive Cardiomyopathy
Pulse rhythm
Conversely, an irregular pulse pattern is termed dysrhythmia, stemming from disruptions in cardiac...
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use


