Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 6, 2026

Benefits of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in an Asynchronous Heart Failure Model Induced by Left Bundle Branch Ablation and Rapid Pacing
Published on: December 11, 2017
Indication and electrical performance of conventional, resynchronization, and conduction system pacing in
Stephan Dobner1,2,3,4, Serlha Tawo1, Fabian Noti1
1Department of Cardiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Background:
Conduction system disorders and arrhythmias may require pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM). The optimal mode of pacing in ATTR-CM remains unknown.
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the electrical performance and clinical outcomes of conventional, resynchronization, and conduction system pacing (CSP) in ATTR-CM.
Methods:
In this observational study, the effects of cardiac pacing were investigated in 250 consecutive patients with ATTR-CM presenting at Inselspital Bern between June 2019 and February 2023.
Results:
During follow-up, 67 of 250 patients (26.8%) received a PM. Implantation of conventional single- (VVI) or dual-chamber (DDD) PMs was more common before ATTR-CM diagnosis (n = 17 of 25; 68%), and physiological pacing (cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]/CSP) was increasingly used thereafter (n = 24 of 42 [57.1%]). Sick sinus syndrome (n = 11 of 35 [31.4%] vs 6 of 32 [18.8%]) and higher-degree atrioventricular block (n = 20 of 35 [57.1%] vs 9 of 32 [28.1%]) were more common indications for VVI/DDD, with pursuit of a pace/ablate strategy (n = 12 of 32 [37.5%]) and heart failure (HF) (n = 5 of 32 [15.6%]) contributing significantly to implantation of CRT/CSP. QRS duration width was significantly lower with CSP (122 ms [interquartile range {IQR} 120-139]) than CRT (155 ms [IQR 141-160]) or VVI/DDD (160 ms [IQR 144-180]; P < .001). Although left ventricular/left bundle branch area pacing capture thresholds were significantly lower after CSP (0.75 V [IQR 0.5-1.2]) than CRT (1.3 V [IQR 1.0-1.6]; P = .049) at implantation, no significant differences for atrial or ventricular lead performance were observed during follow-up (P > .05). Patients referred for CRT/CSP had a higher incidence of HF (P = .014) and more common HF hospitalizations (P = .03); however, mortality was not significantly different (P = .28).
Conclusion:
Offering stable electrical performance and improved resynchronization, the effect of CSP on clinical outcomes warrants further exploration in ATTR-CM.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04776824.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy IV: Restrictive Cardiomyopathy
Heart Failure Drugs: Inotropic Agents
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias
Dysrhythmias V: Evaluating Dysrhythmias
Pathophysiology of Cardiac Performance

