Skip to content

LVSP Based CRT vs. RVAP Based CRT

Left Ventricular Septal Pacing Based Rescue CRT Versus Right Ventricular Apical Pacing Based CRT for Chronic Heart Failure: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05985408
Enrollment
40
Registered
2023-08-14
Start date
2023-09-01
Completion date
2025-09-01
Last updated
2023-08-14

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy, Heart Failure, Left Ventricular Septal Pacing, Right Ventricular Septal Pacing

Brief summary

To find out whether left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP)-based cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is superior to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP)-based CRT in patients with failed left bundle branch pacing at the beginning of chronic heart failure.

Interventions

For left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) failure cases, use left ventricular septal pacing instead of LBBP; others were same as traditional CRT.

For left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) failure cases, use right ventricular apical pacing instead of LBBP; others were same as traditional CRT.

Sponsors

Fu Wai Hospital, Beijing, China
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 90 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1\. Chronic heart failure, LVEF ≤35% after at least 3 months of guideline-optimized drug therapy, NYHA class II-IV with complete left bundle branch block (QRSd≥130 ms), OR Atrioventricular block with LVEF ≤ 50% with the indication of cardiac pacing; 3. Age between 18 and 90 years old; 4. The expected survival period is greater than 12 months; 5. Signed the informed consent form for the study.

Exclusion criteria

1. Previous mechanical tricuspid valve replacement. 2. Previous pacemaker or other devices implanted and for device replacement or upgrading for this time. 3. Patients have a history of unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, CABG, and PCI surgery within three months. 4. Persistent atrial fibrillation without AV block, the proportion of biventricular pacing is not expected to less than 95%. 5. Patients participated in any of the other studies at the same time, which may confound the results of this study. 6. Pregnancy, planning to become pregnant. 8\. Patients with a history of heart transplantation.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)6 monthsLVEF evaluated by echocardiography,Bi-plane Simpson's method
left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV)6 monthsLVESV evaluated by echocardiography

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
6-minute hall walk distance6 months6-minute hall walk distance
Heart failure rehospitalization6 monthsRehospitalization due to the exacerbation of heart failure
paced QRSd duration.6 monthsQRS duration measurement after the procedure
Malignant ventricular arrhythmias6 monthsICD therapy for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation
All cause death6 monthsAll cause death events
Rehospitalization for cardiovascular adverse events12 monthsRehospitalization for cardiovascular adverse events
NT-proBNP6 monthsSerum NT-proBNP level

Countries

China

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026