Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization

Aims: There are limited prospective randomized studies comparing left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and biventricular (BiV) pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The study tested whether LBBAP is non-inferior to BiV pacing in patients with Class I indication for CRT. Methods and results: The CSP-SYNC study is an investigator-initiated, randomized, single-centre study. Sixty-two patients were randomized 1:1 to LBBAP or BiV. The primary study endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in echo and clinical parameters after 6 months and 12 months. Thirty-one patients were randomized to each arm. Most patients were males (71%), and 32% had ischaemic cardiomyopathy. At 6 months, similar improvement of LVEF was observed in the LBBAP group compared to the BiV group [14.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 11.2–16.8) in LBBAP vs. 8.5% (95% CI: 5.6–11.2) in BiV] with a mean intergroup difference of 5.6% (95% CI: 1.6–9.5

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
DiRROS repository (University of Maribor)
Published
2026-01-05
Primary Topic
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization

Maja Ivanovski, David Žižek, Jakob Peterlin, Jernej Štublar et al.
DiRROS repository (University of Maribor)
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
article

Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization

Maja Ivanovski, David Žižek, Jakob Peterlin, Jernej Štublar, Marta Cvijić, Dinko Zavrl, Tadej Žlahtič, Anja Zupan Mežnar, Miha Mrak
article en

Abstract

Aims: There are limited prospective randomized studies comparing left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and biventricular (BiV) pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The study tested whether LBBAP is non-inferior to BiV pacing in patients with Class I indication for CRT. Methods and results: The CSP-SYNC study is an investigator-initiated, randomized, single-centre study. Sixty-two patients were randomized 1:1 to LBBAP or BiV. The primary study endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in echo and clinical parameters after 6 months and 12 months. Thirty-one patients were randomized to each arm. Most patients were males (71%), and 32% had ischaemic cardiomyopathy. At 6 months, similar improvement of LVEF was observed in the LBBAP group compared to the BiV group [14.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 11.2–16.8) in LBBAP vs. 8.5% (95% CI: 5.6–11.2) in BiV] with a mean intergroup difference of 5.6% (95% CI: 1.6–9.5

DiRROS repository (University of Maribor)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization — Maja Ivanovski, David Žižek, et al. · DiRROS repository (University of Maribor) (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS